Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister agree that among those who are most excluded in society are the elderly, disabled and parents of young families who do not have a car and live in rural communities without access to many services. One in four or five families in rural areas have no access to a car. In such circumstances, has she used her influence to try to persuade her colleagues not to announce the closure of thousands of sub-post offices in those communities, which provide services to precisely those excluded groups?

Hilary Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has worked extremely hard to cover as many subjects as possible. In the social exclusion taskforce, we are looking carefully at those who have been most excluded—wherever they live and whatever their circumstances—and considering what we can do to support them as effectively as possible. We know that all too often even if a service exists, the most excluded do not properly access it. We want to tackle that too, which is why we are concentrating on early intervention.

Hilary Armstrong: Of course, those who sleep rough on our streets are among the most excluded. When I was Minister with responsibility for housing, I was responsible for reducing the number of people sleeping rough on our streets by more than two thirds, so I know that the Government are absolutely determined to get the most vulnerable people off the streets and inside. That will not cure all their problems, but it will mean that the Government and those who work with them, including many exceptionally good voluntary organisations, can begin to help those people to put their lives back together. Next year, the social exclusion taskforce will take a lead in pilots, in which we will consider how we can more effectively help many people who end up with chaotic lifestyles that may well include rough sleeping.

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that education should prepare young people for life, and that the emotional aspects of sex education are important. In addition to providing PSHE, we are putting an emphasis on sex and relationship education. A programme on the social and emotional aspects of learning, known as the SEAL programme, is already in place in one third of schools, and another third is expected to introduce it by mid-2007. All that is part of the effort to increase confidence and maturity, and to help to prepare young people for coping with making important decisions later in life.

Patrick McFadden: It is absolutely right to say that parental involvement and a parental role is important. It is important, both for parents and schools, that we have a full and frank discussion about the issues. We should discuss them openly and not try to sweep them under the carpet, and that way, we can prepare young people for the important decisions that they have to make in life, and ensure that they delay making important decisions about pregnancy until they are fully equipped to do so.

David Amess: The Minister knows how important the issue is for voluntary organisations. He will know that in 2002, the Treasury recommended the certainty of three-year funding, and the Chancellor has recently made a statement. Last year, however, the National Audit Office said that little progress had been made, so will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House what guarantee there is that voluntary organisations will have some certainty?

Mark Pritchard: With the advent of the German presidency of the European Union, and Chancellor Merkel's commitment to a revived constitutional treaty, albeit in compressed form, will the Deputy Prime Minister give the House an undertaking that if there is a transfer of more powers and competences, and any further loss of UK sovereignty as a result of a compressed or mini treaty, the UK will have an opportunity to express its view in a national referendum.

Paddy Tipping: Is it not important to take a positive and engaged approach to the European Union so that we do not just talk about climate change but introduce serious proposals for change through an emissions trading scheme and a post-Kyoto agreement.

Jim Devine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are more than 2,000 civil servants living in my constituency and the surrounding area who provide a national service through the Inland Revenue? Those 2,000 jobs would be at risk if the nationalists stole Scotland or England.

Joan Walley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's work on the cross-departmental ministerial committee on the post office network. What value does he place on the social and community aspects of the work of post offices in both rural and urban areas across the country?

John Prescott: I recognise that my hon. Friend made clear in an early-day motion the importance of post offices providing social access to people in rural and urban communities. That is the major consideration in the Cabinet Committee that I chair. I can assure her that the decline occurred under both Administrations—about 50 per cent. of the decline took place under the previous Administration—and there is a real problem achieving a proper balance between cost and social access to those facilities. We will take that into account, and it will be included in the consultation document that we will shortly announce to the House.

William Hague: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall telling the Labour conference in 1999 that he would protect post offices against closures? Is it not the case that since then the Government have taken away the traditional businesses of post offices and that the fastest rate of closures has been in the past two years? Since it his responsibility to co-ordinate Government policy on this, is the devastation of our post office network the intended result of a brilliant piece of co-ordination or the unintended result of a staggering piece of incompetence?

John Prescott: I thought that the game was that I was to give an answer and the right hon. Gentleman was to respond—he has been here long enough to have known that.
	The House will be aware of the Government's commitment to developing an affordable, just and sustainable pensions system. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet Committee on welfare reform, where decisions on pensions policy are taken. I continue to play an active part in those discussions. The Government's Pensions Bill, which was presented to the House on 29 November, makes a landmark settlement for future generations. It will link the basic state pension to earnings—a link that was broken by the Opposition—and make the system fairer to women and carers. The pensions personal accounts White Paper was laid before the House yesterday. It sets out in more detail our proposals for a new, low-cost way for ordinary working people to save for retirement. I am proud to be part of a Government who are bringing forward these plans for the long-term benefit of ordinary people, and I commend them to the House.

Tony Blair: I do not accept that patient care is not improving in this country. I believe that patient care is improving in this country. That is perfectly obvious from the publication of the results this morning, but also from the fact that when we cane to office, literally hundreds of thousands of people used to wait for 12 months, sometimes 18 months, for their operations. We are now on course for an 18-week period from door to door for the in-patient and out-patient lists combined. That is happening not just as a result of massive investment, but as a result of change.
	Not only did the right hon. Gentleman vote against the investment, every penny piece of it; he is now apparently opposed to the reforms and changes that are necessary to provide value for money in the health service.

Tony Blair: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the claim made by his shadow health spokesman that 29 accident and emergency departments were to close. I have been through this. It is true that many are subject to consultation about changes in provision, but 12 are not even subject to consultation about change.
	Let us look at what is happening overall. Accident and emergency departments have been transformed from how they were a few years ago. When we came to office, people had to wait for weeks and weeks, sometimes months, to see a cancer consultant. They no longer have to do that. As for cardiac care, people used to die waiting for operations; now people get their operations within three months. People used to wait for more than two years for cataract operations; now the average is three months or less. Moreover, the largest hospital building programme since the inception of the NHS is under way.
	The fact is that the NHS is getting better. It is getting better under a Labour Government. After years of cuts and underinvestment under the Tories, the NHS is once again the pride of the country.

Tony Blair: I have to say to my hon. Friend that I do of course answer questions on Iraq at this Dispatch Box the entire time. Over the next few weeks, there will be the US Administration's response to the Baker-Hamilton report that has been presented to it. We will also come to a different position ourselves in respect of how we deploy troops in Iraq, provided that the operation currently being conducted in Basra is successful for all the reasons that the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have given. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will tomorrow give details of how we can make sure that the House has an opportunity to debate these issues properly.

Peter Tapsell: Since the Prime Minister is so fond of apologising to foreigners for the conduct of our long-dead ancestors, will he now, particularly in view of the accumulated turbulence, apologise to the British people for his own folly in leading us into the Iraq disaster?

Tony Blair: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I was not fully aware of all the changes in British waterways and canals—but I am now. It is correct that in the past few years, there has been a very significant rise in people's use of our canals and waterways. The British Waterways Board has done a superb job, and as a result, the situation has been turned around from the position a decade ago. However, it, like everyone else, has to live within the means that we set ourselves. We are giving moneys additional to those that were available in 1997, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, like everyone else, must live within its means.

Phil Willis: Four decades after the screening of "Cathy Come Home", 1.6 million children are still living in temporary or unsuitable accommodation. In my own constituency, 2,600 families are on the waiting list and 110 families are statutorily homeless. The response of the Tory local council has been to create a single affordable dwelling in the past year. When will the Prime Minister really tackle this issue by imposing a duty on local authorities to create social housing, and when will he give them the resources and policies to be able to do so?

Kali Mountford: People will be concerned today to hear that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence report recommends that some teenagers may, as a last resort, have to have surgery to treat obesity. Would it not instead be better to deal with problems with nutrition through the healthy start programme? While the extra money for low income families is welcome, is it not nutritional and exercise advice that is the best way to tackle the growing problem of teenage obesity?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the healthy start scheme, a good scheme that provides vouchers for healthy food for hundreds of thousands of children. Through extended schools, the increase in breakfast clubs and after-school activities, many children who previously did not get a meal before school are now doing so. Also, as a result of the several hundred specialist sports colleges, we are increasing the availability of sport in schools. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a major area in which the Government have to expand our activities and deepen the support we give people, because the issue of public health—on which the future of the national health service depends, in large measure—can be met only by people having the opportunity to live healthier lives and taking some responsibility for doing so.

Tony Blair: First, when we talk about those who have fallen in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should pay tribute to their heroism, courage and dedication. I know that my the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is looking carefully at the arrangements in respect of coroners. I do not have anything to say about that at present, but it is of course important to make sure that bereaved families are given every possible facility.

John Hutton: Yes, to ensure that there is a proper service, it must be properly resourced. That aspect of the system will not come in until 2010, and I must accommodate all the expense and cost of that from within my comprehensive spending review settlement. I am confident that I can do so. The details of exactly how much support is available will need to be fixed nearer the time.
	The hon. Gentleman's principal concern was with the time scale for the transition, and I understand the point that he has made. I am sure that other hon. Members will seek to make the same point, so to all of them who are thinking of making that point, I offer a general response: we must be realistic and honest and straight with people. It would be dishonest to pretend that there is somehow a magic bullet that I can fire or a lever that I can crank in the Department to speed up the transition to the new system. If there is one thing that we should be wary of doing it is to assume that people such as me, who have responsibility at the moment, should overrule the advice that I have received from the experts who advise me and impose my judgment about a faster time scale.  [ Interruption. ] Look, without labouring the point, that would be the real betrayal.
	If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can do it faster, we look forward to hearing his advice. If it comes to a choice between the experts and the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that I will go for the experts every day of the week. If he thinks that we can go faster, we will certainly look at his proposals and study them in detail, but we should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and the time scale seeks to reflect that properly. It is quite wrong to say that nothing will happen until 2013, as it is wrong to say that we are turning our back on the cases that are trapped in the current system—that is not true. The main aspects of the reforms will begin to come through in 2008. That is when we will be able to offer the ending of compulsion for benefit claimants and the availability of the new £10 disregard. We can do that in 2008, because new software is required to make that payment. It will not come from the CSA; the maintenance disregard will be reflected in an adjustment in benefits, so Jobcentre Plus will do that.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me about the interim maintenance assessment revaluation. That is a genuinely tough call. Again, we would do a disservice to our constituents if we did not acknowledge that there is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. It is worth pointing out that those cases stopped in 2001, because we realised that the measure was ineffective. The dropping of IMAs was done by common consent across the parties—a shared agreement. We replaced the measure with a new criminal sanction of withholding information from the CSA. The original intent was that an interim maintenance assessment would act as a punitive encouragement to the non-resident parent who was not paying to fork out the cash. It spectacularly failed to do that. In cases where we revisited interim maintenance assessments, we found that the likelihood of money getting to the parent with care was about 30 per cent., looking at the total debt in the system.
	We have to make a choice. There is no point in pretending. Let me be honest: I know what will happen. If I try to pursue the whole debt, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends too, will say, "Hang on. This is unfair. You are asking the non-resident parent to pay back too much." We have to prioritise and make a simple, clear choice. I want to get as much of that money back into the hands, pockets and purses of the parents with care as I can. That is going to be my priority. I think that I can recover about £500 million of that money. I am being honest and straight with the House: I do not believe that all of that £1.3 billion is now recoverable. If I have a choice between investing resource into the new organisation and debt recovery, I am going to follow the money that I can recover cost effectively and not waste the time of the agency, or anyone else, in trying to recover debt that, frankly, is not recoverable. If that is what he is proposing, he is making a mistake.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman wants me to reconsider deduction of earnings orders. Let me be clear: the White Paper proposes that we take a power to pilot that as one aspect of the system. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. That is what we are doing. I want to make one other point clear, too. If we are to incentivise the reaching of voluntary agreements, we have to make aware those parents who are thinking of holding up the proverbial two fingers to us again and saying, "I can play the system. I can string this out and it is going to be fine. I will wriggle out of my responsibilities", that that is not going to happen. I have to make the system as unpleasant, tough and harsh as possible for the non-compliant parents. That is what this potential new power could do. I want to charge the non-resident parents, as well—

David Laws: Before we come to the Secretary of State's future plans, will he confirm what is in the White Paper: namely, that the CSA currently has £3.5 billion-worth of arrears to chase, and 250,000 uncleared cases, with an average waiting time of approaching 500 days? Before his new plans come in in 2010, what is he going to do to ensure that the agency continues to deliver? Why is the CSA planning to reduce staff numbers—I understand by something like 2,000—over the next couple of years? Surely there should not be any reductions in staff until the CSA starts to deliver and ceases to be such a shambles.
	In relation to his future plans, will he acknowledge that many people—particularly after the way in which the statement has been spun over the last few days—will regard the new organisation as a re-badged son of CSA and not the fundamental reform that they want? They will certainly be disappointed that we will not see the changes until 2010.
	Earlier this year, the Secretary of State promised the House that his policy on the CSA would not be driven simply by gimmicks. In that case, why is he announcing a website to name and shame parents who are not paying, when he intends only to use that measure against people who have been prosecuted in any case? Does he acknowledge that that is likely to make almost no difference and will simply be seen as a gimmick?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm what he did not say in the statement, which is that paragraph 5.42 of the White Paper makes it clear that he is planning to write off £800 million of the £3.5 billion arrears? I understand entirely his concerns about whether he will collect all that money, but why is he writing it off before he has even struck agreements based on the actual incomes of the non-resident parents? Surely that will be the right time to write off arrears. Will not people be suspicious that this is simply about massaging down the overall figures?
	On the issue of trying to assess people's income and collect the money, we are disappointed that the Secretary of State has not gone for the fundamental reform of folding the Child Support Agency into Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. When he says that he is going to use previous years' income data, will he acknowledge that some of that will be 20 months out of date? That may mean that he will have the same challenges, appeals and disagreements that currently bung up the system. Is that not a serious concern?
	Does the Secretary of State also acknowledge that, if he wants to demonstrate that he is getting tough on people who seek to avoid their responsibilities, he ought to change the CSA so that it is capable of pursuing parents who move abroad? That is possible for many other agencies. Are not people likely to conclude that they have had 10 years of non-delivery from the Government on the Child Support Agency, in spite of the initial promises, and that the Secretary of State is now suggesting four more years of delay? Why should people be confident that he will deliver on these grand aspirations?

Alistair Burt: May I welcome the Secretary of State's statement? I appreciate the amount of work that he has put into this difficult area. Two of the principles behind the agency were, first, to ensure that children got a proper and fair maintenance payment and, secondly, to ensure that responsibility was not passed on to other taxpayers—not the Government, but other taxpayers and the parents of other children. Although I welcome an attempt to make sure that there are more consensual arrangements, will he ensure that those two principles are not lost and that we will not go back to a system whereby deals were done that put the emphasis on the taxpayer? The parties knew what they were doing. Finally, on experts, will he watch the Treasury experts and make sure that he continues to drive the policy, not the Treasury?

John Hutton: In relation to the last point, the Government as a whole are taking the policy forward. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, because he had to struggle with these issues himself when he was in government. He was a fine Minister. I accept and agree with the two fundamental points that he raised about the basic design features of the system. That is why we have decided not to accept, for example, the suggestion that there should be a complete maintenance disregard. We have to make sure that the arrangements reflect the point that he made about a balance when it comes to thinking about what it is reasonable for the taxpayer to do. We all have an interest in preventing child poverty and preventing families from slipping into poverty when, unfortunately, they break up, but we have to do that in a balanced and proportionate way. More work needs to be done on that to make sure that there is not also a disincentive effect on work for lone parents, which we have to guard against as well.

Ronnie Campbell: I welcome the statement, which is obviously going down the right road—at least my office staff will be given a bit of respite if the proposals work. May I follow on from the question asked by my friend, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)? I have found that a lot of fathers say that they do not get paid, but work in small businesses and get paid cash in hand. Obviously, the mothers know that that is happening because they see them driving around in cars and going on holidays, but there is no way to get at them. Will the new system get them?

John Hutton: We are not taking a general power to write-off. Any settlement of an outstanding debt must be subject to agreement by the parent with care.

John Hutton: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is true that the powers that we are taking are much tougher than those that are usually associated with the recovery of civil debt. However, we are taking those tougher powers for a very simple reason: we want to ensure that more of the money that is owned to families gets paid. We must tackle the culture of non-compliance, which is a fundamentally corrosive factor in our society that undermines family values and parental responsibility. Of course, any proposals in the legislation must comply with the European convention.

Paul Holmes: Like every MP, I have long strings of constituents coming to my constituency office and surgeries with problems to do with the CSA, so I welcome many of the proposals announced today, not least because I called for some of the measures between 2002 and 2005, when I was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on work and pensions. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) has pointed out, one major concern is the fact that it will some years for certain of the reforms to come into effect. Will the Secretary of State explain why he, or rather his predecessors, failed to introduce the reforms five and 10 years ago, when all concerned were calling for them?

John Hutton: If the voluntary arrangement breaks down, the parent with care is free to submit an application to the agency, or to the commission in future, and we will rigorously enforce those applications. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important point, and we must make sure that parents with care do not become the victims of abusive, violent or coercive behaviour, aimed at making them settle cases against their best interests. I accept that we have more work to do on that, and we must fix the level of maintenance disregard, as that is an important issue, too. At the end of the day, we must all address one fundamental question, and answer it in one way or another: on the back of everything that we have learned over the past 13 years, do we think that it is the right way forward to move to a system that tries genuinely to encourage and incentivise voluntary agreements? I believe that we can deal with the concerns that my hon. Friend raised, if the answer to that question is yes. If the answer to the question is no, we have a more fundamental disagreement, but I think that my hon. Friend is with me on the main issue.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman, supported by Mr. Eric Pickles, Alistair Burt, Mr. Robert Syms, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Greg Clark, Mr. Greg Hands, Robert Neill, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Michael Gove and Michael Fabricant, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of gardens and urban green space; to confer on local authorities powers to set housing density targets; to make provision about the transfer of land formerly used for economic purposes to residential use; to transfer to local authorities certain powers relating to housing and planning; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 19].

Mr. Francis Maude, supported by Mr. Tim Boswell, Greg Clark, Mrs. Nadine Dorries, Mr. Nick Gibb, Charles Hendry, Nick Herbert, Tim Loughton, Mr. Andrew Tyrie and Mr. Nicholas Soames, presented a Bill to require an audit of existing or planned infrastructure in areas of significant housing development: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January [Bill 36].

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Three weeks ago, Royal Assent was given to legislation that cleared the way for the restoration of locally accountable, democratic, power-sharing government in Northern Ireland. As the House knows, the Government are firmly committed to the aim of devolving policing and justice powers to the Assembly, as envisaged in the Good Friday agreement. Since 1998, considerable progress has been made in creating the conditions that will make that goal possible. The legislation passed by the House earlier this year provided a framework for that, and it put in place a process to ensure that devolution can take place only with support across the communities of Northern Ireland. It is right that there should be such support.
	I understand the concerns of the Democratic Unionist party, and I have articulated in debates in the House the fact that the circumstances must be right. I know, too, that all the parties, including the DUP, support the principle of devolution. The Government have a responsibility to make sure that devolution can take place quickly when the Assembly request it. We set a timetable for May 2008 in the St. Andrews Agreement, and I have asked my officials in the Northern Ireland Office to press on with the necessary preparatory work, including the appropriate Orders in Council, to ensure that we achieve that.
	It has been a long and difficult road to reach that point, but all sides have shown determination and commitment to take Northern Ireland forward, and I commend them on doing so. I have no doubt that any remaining obstacles can be negotiated before journey's end at Parliament Buildings on 26 March next year. When we reach that point, the kind of politics that we in the House and our colleagues in Wales and Scotland take for granted will increasingly become the order of the day in Northern Ireland, which is as it should be. The "normal" will then cease to be remarkable. The Bill helps Northern Ireland further along the road to normality. In the crucial areas of justice and security, it reflects the very significant progress that has been made and which has been well documented in this House, even in the 18 months or so that I have had the privilege of speaking at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

David Heath: I am not an expert in Northern Ireland affairs, but I noted the right hon. Gentleman's reference to normalisation. May I direct his attention to clause 7, which is an ouster clause of the most pernicious kind? We have rejected outright such a provision for jurisdictions in England and Wales, and it appears to contradict the recommendations of my noble Friend, Lord Carlile of Berriew. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?

Peter Hain: We are dealing with extortion and those other serious crimes through the Organised Crime Task Force. The hon. Gentleman is right that especially in relation to organised crime, that is still an issue. There have been only—one might say only—six cases of known jury intimidation in the past five years and he and I know well that that figure could be significantly higher. That is why there is the option of a juryless trial after a recommendation by the Director of Public Prosecutions, acting perhaps on intelligence or other information provided by the police or the security service, for example. After the Bill receives Royal Assent, the DPP can go to a judge and say, "The norm of a jury trial should be suspended in this case and provision should be made for one without a jury."

Lady Hermon: Again, I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I know that his wife was involved in a car accident recently and my colleagues and, I am sure, the entire House, wish her well, particularly before Christmas. We may have our arguments, but I wish his family a very enjoyable Christmas, which I know may well be spent in Northern Ireland.
	Before he welcomes the Bill and tries to persuade the House to agree to it without a vote, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is already on the statute book the Criminal Justice Act 2003, passed three years ago in the House, which allows for non-jury trials in Northern Ireland? Rarely does mainland legislation extend to Northern Ireland—we seem to have separate bits of legislation these days—but that Act extends to Northern Ireland and allows for non-jury trials where there is a real and present danger of jury tampering. Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House about why it has never been used—never been activated by the DPP? Why should we have any confidence that the DPP will exercise his discretion any differently in relation to the Bill before us?

Peter Hain: Yes, on the assumption that any such cases are brought after the Bill's procedures have been implemented. Of course that will apply. In some of the examples to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the DPP may well be able to go to the judge and say, "I think a trial without a jury is appropriate in these cases."
	The changes introduced by the Bill will help to reduce the risks to jurors, but even with these reforms, there will still be cases where there are paramilitary and community-based pressures on a jury that could lead to a perverse verdict. I accept that there may be exceptional cases which cannot be tried before a jury. However, we will take a radically different approach to how these cases will be managed.
	The decision to move to a non-jury trial will be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in future. He or she will be required to apply a defined statutory test that is based not on the offence itself, but on the circumstances in which it was committed. Crucially, non-jury trial will be possible only where there is a risk to the administration of justice.
	There has been a downward trend in the number of Diplock trials over recent years, and we want to get to a point where there are no cases at all that must be heard without a jury. However, I am sure that the House will understand that it would not be appropriate to remove that option entirely, even in the current improved conditions in Northern Ireland.
	Considerable progress has already been made in normalising the security profile in Northern Ireland, as the Independent Monitoring Commission has reported. Towers and observation posts in south Armagh have been demolished, troops are being withdrawn from police stations in Northern Ireland, military bases and installations in Northern Ireland are being closed, most routine patrolling by the military has ceased, troop levels are at an all-time low, and not a soldier was on the streets on 12 July, for the first time in almost 40 years. However, there is still more to do.

Peter Hain: I remind my hon. Friend that just eight of the 48 provisions in the previous legislation—the part 7 powers—have been transported into this Bill. Forty of them—the vast majority—have been lapsed, appropriately and rightly.
	The powers are necessary to deal with a number of different circumstances. They will help in managing parades, road closures, and dealing with extreme public order incidents such as the Whiterock parade last year, which mercifully was not repeated this year. They may be used in dealing with organised crime and will be essential in combating loyalist and dissident republican terrorism, which is still with us. Let me give some practical examples. The stop and search powers may be used to search people for weapons around a parade or a sports event where it is anticipated that there might be trouble, to deal effectively with bomb threats by allowing police to cordon off the area and providing appropriate powers of access if the device is on private property, to search premises ahead of VIP visits, and to allow the police or the Army to chase criminals across private land without breaching trespass laws. Those of us who were briefed by the Chief Constable after the Whiterock parade last year will know that these powers are necessary. We saw the horrifying attacks on soldiers and police officers by loyalist gunmen and the steps that the police and the Army had to take to try to deal with that situation, including going through premises and on to nearby premises.

Peter Hain: I note my hon. Friend's general point, which is well made. The fact is, however, that the PSNI is now the most accountable and regulated force in the world, with the Policing Board, the district policing partnerships, and the police ombudsman, who is, appropriately, not known for her reticence in these matters. Apart from political oversight by this House and, in future, by a devolved Executive and Assembly, the structures of the Policing Board and the other arrangements provide important safeguards.

Peter Hain: There is balance. Otherwise, as I explained, there would be a risk to national security with the possibility of intelligence getting into the wrong hands. I repeat: the Bill is designed to ensure that juryless trials are the exception and hardly ever occur. We have looked at the process extremely carefully and taken advice from the Chief Constable and others involved in law enforcement, and the approach that we have taken seems to be the best one. It strikes the right balance between meeting his concerns and the overriding importance of ensuring that the administration of justice in Northern Ireland is not contaminated by jury intimidation, which it has often been in the past.

David Lidington: I think that the whole House welcomes the improvements in the security situation in Northern Ireland, which have made it possible for the Government to present the Bill today. The most recent summary was in the Independent Monitoring Commission's 12th report in October this year. It stated that the commission no longer believed that the Provisional IRA was engaged in terrorism, and also stated
	"We do not believe that PIRA is undertaking terrorist-type training".
	The commission argued that the Provisional IRA had disbanded some of its key military structures, and that there had been a further erosion of its capacity to return to violence were it to wish ever to do so.
	However, the IMC went on to identify continuing threats from other terrorist groups, which in my view do justify the retention of certain special powers for the limited circumstances described by the Secretary of State. It concluded that the Real IRA
	"remains active and dangerous and that it continues to seek to sustain its position as a terrorist organisation."
	It also concluded that the Continuity IRA
	"remains an active and dangerous threat".
	As for the loyalists, anyone who thumbs through the pages of the main Northern Ireland newspapers knows that their campaigns of criminal violence continue. The IMC stated that the UDA was still involved in violence and had
	"a heavy involvement in crime",
	and described the Ulster Volunteer Force as "active, violent and ruthless".
	It is in the context set out by the IMC that the House must assess the need for changes in the law and the continuing need for certain extraordinary procedures in our criminal justice system. I believe that the Bill marks a significant shift away from the emergency powers legislation which Parliament, under successive Governments, has renewed for many years—indeed, for several decades.

David Lidington: I completely accept the hon. Gentleman's point that terrorist and paramilitary groups will seek access to such information, and that if they acquire it they will use it for evil purposes. I question whether the Government are right that it is impossible to construct a procedure that provides both adequate safeguards and some scrutiny of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. On that, we need not look only at immigration legislation. I remind the Secretary of State that in the Terrorism Act 2000 the appeals procedure against the proscription of an organisation specifically empowers the special tribunal set up to hear that appeal to deny the appellant or the appellant's representatives access to the information on which the decision to proscribe was made. At the very least, that precedent needs to be looked at in Committee.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Secretary of State's comments about a possible risk to, or compromise of, national security in respect of whether or not a trial goes to a jury. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the conditions for issuing the certificate are set out in clause 1(3) to (6) and that nowhere do those conditions refer to issues of national security, and nor is the issue of national security referred to in clause 1(2), which deals with
	"a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired"?

David Lidington: Again, it would be perfectly proper for Members to explore such matters further in Committee and on Report.
	Another issue that is bound to come up as the Bill progresses is the familiar debate about whether a non-jury trial should be held by one judge sitting alone or by three judges. I know that the Liberal Democrats have argued in the past that there should be a three-judge tribunal rather than a singe judge. For our part, we shall approach this matter with an open mind, but I should say that I am predisposed to favour the one-judge solution both because of the small size of the Northern Ireland bench and for fear that, given the circumstances in Northern Ireland, we would inevitably get into a situation in which one judge was seen as coming from one community and a second judge from another, with the third judge supposedly holding the swing vote in any decision. I am sure that we will have ample opportunity to pursue that argument in Committee.
	I welcome the clauses giving protection to jurors. They are sensible and we will support them. I also welcome the powers for members of the armed forces acting, as the Secretary of State said, in support of the police and at the invitation by authorisation of the Chief Constable.
	I welcome, too, the extension of the regulation of the private security industry to Northern Ireland, and I am glad that the Government have acted swiftly on the recommendation of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the review of private security industry legislation be completed swiftly. However, I question whether the Security Industry Authority is fully equipped for the challenge of dealing with paramilitary organisations. If we look at the Select Committee report on Northern Ireland, we see that it heard evidence that licensees were frequently pressured by paramilitaries to employ particular people as door supervisors, that some local councils in Northern Ireland operated no form of registration at all, and that even in Belfast where police checks had to be done it was still left up to the licensee to decide whether the results of such a check should lead to somebody being barred from employment. So the onus on that, and therefore the risk of standing up to the paramilitary organisations, was left with the individual licence holder. When the Bill is enacted, the SIA will have to confront some powerful, very well established and utterly ruthless criminal interests in Northern Ireland. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he can assure the House that the SIA will be up to that challenging task.

Lady Hermon: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he reflect on his praise for the NIHRC, particularly given that clause 49 extends certain provisions to England, his beloved Wales and Scotland, as well as to Northern Ireland? The increased powers of the NIHRC presumably extend to Great Britain. Did the Welsh Affairs Committee get an opportunity to discuss that extension of powers?

Paul Murphy: No, but the worry always was that extending the powers of the NIHRC would have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom—although not, of course, for the Republic of Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has already mentioned. That is a difficulty, but everybody accepts that the commissions set up some eight or nine years ago—be it the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland or the NIHRC, for example—are exceptional, in that they relate particularly to the circumstances of Northern Ireland and have taken the accountability of Government to heights beyond other parts of our country. However, I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making.
	I turn to another interesting issue. All these measures are based on the premise that eventually, policing and justice will be devolved to Northern Ireland. It might be a good idea if the House reflected on the fact that policing and justice in Northern Ireland are already devolved to a large extent. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, a lot of the decisions about policing were taken not by me or my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), but by the Policing Board, which has done a very good job, so a lot of the detailed arrangements are already devolved. I understand that considerably more need to be devolved before the commitment made all those years ago to the devolution of justice and policing to Northern Ireland is met; however, it is sometimes forgotten that such devolution already exists.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred on more than one occasion to the need for the Committee considering the Bill to look in detail at some of the issues that we are examining more generally this afternoon. I am sure that they will also be dealt with in great detail in the other place, where there are many experts on them who will doubtless lend their support to such a debate.
	Before I conclude, I want to make two further points. First, the clauses relating to extra powers for the police and the military—my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle touched on the military—need to be looked at in detail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to say that a highly sophisticated method of accountability in Northern Ireland—be it the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland or the Policing Board—will look after many of those issues. I realise that arrangements are in place regarding who will report to the Secretary of State on issues affecting the military. However, it might be worth while including in the Bill a safeguard or a monitoring system to examine the operation of those clauses as time goes by, or at least to get the Government to agree to having one.
	I accept the general view that we do not want to return a situation where every year, this Parliament deals with these issues, but because we are entering into difficult areas, it is worth while monitoring progress. I say that not just because I was involved in Northern Ireland, but because of my role as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee in dealing with the next and final issue that I want to discuss: the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions on non-jury cases in Northern Ireland. Remember that we are talking about cases that go to trial. I understand that in some instances—for reasons of national security in particular—cases do not end up at trial, but we are talking of cases that will go to non-jury trial. I introduced the 2003 legislation in the full knowledge that at some stage a judge would have a role to play. The Secretary of State and the Government should reflect a little more on the relationship between the DPP and the judiciary. I completely understand the point about national security, the intimidation of juries and the care that needs to be taken with intelligence that leads the DPP to conclude that a trial without jury should be held. However, we always have to balance the issue of security with civil rights and liberties.
	It has been argued that Northern Ireland could have a special exemption in terms of jury trials, because of paramilitary activity—which still exists, including through organised crime—but it and the rest of the country face a much bigger threat from al-Qaeda, as the director general of the Security Service reminded us the other day. In Britain, trials can be held in camera and without juries in certain circumstances. However, the judiciary play a role, even to the extent that certain members have to preside in such trials because they are used to dealing with such matters of national security. We have to be careful on that point and I hope that we will have a good debate on it in Committee, to ensure that we hit the right note.
	In general, the Government have hit the right note with the Bill, because it will carry Northern Ireland even further down the road to a normal society.

Lembit �pik: That simply serves to prove that the business managers do not seem to care about Northern Ireland legislation and allowing us to address it properly. It is a real Hobson's choice making the decisions about which business to attend and I hope that this is the last occasion on which the business managers treat us with such disrespect.
	We also need to put on record our appreciation of the work by Lord Carlile of Berriew, who has made a substantial contribution to the debate. He is one of the finest contributors to these matters and, incidentally, comes from one of the finest constituencies in the countryMontgomeryshire. We appreciate his efforts.
	The Liberal Democrats generally welcome the Bill. It contains much that we support and we welcome announcements by the Government that they will repeal the temporary provisions in part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to Northern Ireland. That is a significant step forward and some credit is due to the Northern Ireland Office for being true to its word and attempting to normalise the legislation that pertains to citizens of Northern Ireland.
	We are also pleased to see at least a professed move away from the Diplock court system. Instead of the presumption being that terrorist cases in Northern Ireland should be tried without a juryand may be tried with a jury only if the DPP deschedules a caseit will be reversed and a case will have to be tried with a jury unless he issues a certificate stating that it must take place without one.
	We have criticised the Government in the past for not moving swiftly on that matter. Indeed, while we welcome the move away from the presumption of non-jury trial, we question whether the new provisions go far enough. There is some cross-party concern that the Government have attempted to remove Diplock courts with one hand but replace them with something similar with the other. In essence, the Bill could do much more to ensure that jury trial becomes the norm in Northern Ireland rather than the exception.
	I am sure that the issue will occupy us considerably in Committee. For a start, we are concerned by the language used in the Bill in relation to the issue of certificates. Clause 1 sets the bar very low. For example, it states that the DPP
	may issue a certificate...if...he suspects that...there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired.
	Those are terrible words to use in legislation. It does not say how big the risk must be. Should it be greater than 50 per cent. or will a 5 per cent. risk be sufficient? The DPP need only suspect something, which is a very low testindeed, it is a lower test than the balance of probabilities. So in clause 1 we already see a construction of words that makes it easy for the DPP to decide that a jury trial is inappropriate.
	The Bill also puts considerable onus on the DPPone personto make the decisions. That is one of the reasons we are so concerned about later sections of the Bill. Not only will the DPP have to make momentous judgments about risk, but there is no safety catch or double check.
	The conditions in clause 1 are equally woolly. Clause 1(3) states:
	Condition 1 is that the defendant...is, or has at any time been, a member of a proscribed organisation...or...is an associate (see subsection 10) of a person who is, or has at any time been, a member of a proscribed organisation.
	It is not clear what that means. If one looks at subsection 10, the definition of associate includes
	a friend...or...relative.
	That is a very broad use of language and open to interpretation. Who could be considered to be a friend of mine? I would imagine that everyone in the Chamber would consider themselves to be in that privileged category [ Interruption. ] Well, some may choose to exempt themselves. The DPP, however, may not be able to take the risk. For example, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) might be at some religious convention in Belfast and, during a break, bump into the Bishop of Southwark in the bar. The bishop says to him, You're my best mate ever. The DPP happens to overhear that, but a fight ensues. Does that mean that the right hon. Member has to be considered a friend of the Bishop of Southwark and therefore qualifies under this condition?
	An even greater concern involves the Prime Minister. There can be no doubt that he has consorted with Gerry Adams on many occasions and is, at the very least, an associate of his. Gerry Adams has clearly been a member of a proscribed organisation

Lembit �pik: Indeed, but that would mean that if for any reason the Prime Minister was on trial in court in Belfastperhaps for the Iraq war, although I hesitate to suggest whyhe would have to be tried without a jury because he is a friend of someone who has been a member of a proscribed organisation. Those examples show how preposterous the Bill's vagueness of definition is. Everything that I have mentioned has to be worked out by one personthe DPP for Northern Ireland.
	I have concerns about some other matters. For example, condition 4 has an unintended consequence. The Bill states:
	Condition 4 is that the offence or any of the offences was committed to any extent (whether directly or indirectly) as a result of, or in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility of one person or group of persons towards another person or group of persons.
	That means that racist attacks could qualify for trial without jury, even though they have nothing at all to do with the troubles in Northern Ireland. I accept that clause 1 begins by making it clear that the DPP would have to be satisfied that the administration of justice might be impaired by a jury trial, but condition 4 makes it possible for many people to ensure that they would not be tried before a jury.
	Moreover, the condition requires the DPP for Northern Ireland to exclude jury trials in circumstances that manifestly have nothing to do with the specific problems of Northern Ireland. We can investigate the other problems in Committee, but we must be clearer, more focused and less vague about the definitions in clause 1; otherwise, the DPP is almost certain to err on the side of caution and exclude jury trials in circumstances where they should be included.
	I hope that the Minister will say why it is the DPP for Northern Ireland who will decide whether a trial is to be conducted with a jury. Would it not be more appropriate for that decision to be taken by a judge? So far in this debate, I have heard no convincing answer to that question. Perhaps the Minister should reflect on the matter, so that we can give it serious treatment in Committee. In the absence of a plausible reason, we risk making the situation over complicated by stepping outside the mainstream judicial system.
	Clause 7 is the most vexing part of the Bill for many people. I stress that I and party are completely opposed to it. Not only does the Bill contain no provision for an appeal against a decision to be held without a jury, but in fact it expressly prohibits such an appeal. Something similar came up in connection with the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. At the time, the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a damning report on the provisions, saying that they were
	inherently objectionable as an attack on an important element of the scheme for protecting Convention rights in the United Kingdom.
	For me, clause 7 is equally objectionable, because it is the same clause. Indeed, I urge the House to look at the fourth and fifth reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights at that time. Seven pages are devoted to the 2004 proposals, with the Committee explaining in considerable detail why it thought that they were unreasonable.
	My party will not call for a vote on the Bill today, as we want it to be considered in Committee, but we will not be able to support it on Third Reading if clause 7 is retained. Moreover, the Government should not expect us to accept this objectionable clause, as they have already conceded the point in separate debates on the Floor of the House. My counsel to the Minister is that we should not fight old fights again, and that the Government should walk away from this unnecessary restriction on human rights. They should accept the verdict of independent reports published less than two years ago and realise that the clause creates a pointless hostage to fortune, as no one really believes that the Government would not use it as a precedent to force similar legislation on the rest of the UK.

Mark Durkan: The Bill is presented in the name of normalisation, but the reality is that some of its provisions are about normalising the abnormal emergency provisions that were resorted to in the context of the troubles.
	During the darkest days of the troubles the rule of law often appeared to be little more than the law of the jungle in disguise. We saw not only paramilitary bombs, murders and atrocities but also arbitrary arrest, internment without trial, collusion and extra-judicial killings. Terrorists comported themselves in paramilitary fashion and people in the military and other security interests acted in ways that amounted to para-terrorism. All that fed into a sense of grievance and despair. It allowed those who headed paramilitary organisations to feign legitimacy and it dragged our society ever deeper into conflict and lawlessness.
	In the face of that, the SDLP stood strong for the proper rule of law. For us an essential part of ending the conflict has always been reaching a situation where all of us fully respected human rights and would know that all organs of the state did so, too. That is why we have always opposed emergency laws and sought their removal and repeal.
	Happily, nowadays, systematic abuses such as conviction on the basis of confession evidence alone and things such as the super grass system have ended, but Diplock courts remain unjust. Under the Bill, Diplock courts will remain. People will still be convicted or acquitted by one judge sitting alone, and the decision to try a case in a Diplock court will be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with absolutely no check or challenge available in a court or by a court that is directed to sit as a Diplock court. As I indicated to the Secretary of State earlier, that is a significant change from what the House was told in October 2005 when we were debating the Terrorism Bill. The Secretary of State made it clear that the intention was to end the provisions for scheduled offences by July 2007; they were extendable only until July 2008 and absolutely not beyond that point.
	The Bill, however, provides for scheduling in perpetuitynot subject to annual renewal in the House, but permanent. Continuity Diplock is provided for in the legislation. Abnormal arrangements are being normalised. That is the part of the normalisation agenda that the Bill introduces.
	When the House was debating the Terrorism Bill in late 2005 and early 2006, the Government put much emphasis on the views of Lord Carlile. We heard, for instance, that he had said:
	In my view the duration of the powers proposed in the Bill is justified on the merits and proportional.
	That was their extension to July 2007, exceptionally to July 2008.
	He continued:
	On the evidence I have seen and heard, I believe that the security situation...justifies the continued scheduling of offences. I regret this very much...I hope that it will no longer be necessary after 2007, as is the inherent hope in the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill...The scheduling system as amended by the Bill
	the 2005 Bill
	should continue until what is now the foreseeable end of scheduling.
	Lord Carlile offered those views when the Government sought endorsement of the Terrorism Bill on the basis that it was purely a continuing temporary requirement. So far the Government have not relied on anything new or different in respect of the proposals in the Bill, which are obviously much more far-reaching than those of the Terrorism Act 2006.
	The Bill makes a three-point turn both on the changes that were promised and heralded in the 2006 Act, and on the commitments made by the Government in the joint declaration of 2003. We warmly welcomed the commitment in the joint declaration to abolish emergency laws specific to Northern Ireland.
	The Secretary of State says that there are few Diplock courts. There should be none. An outcome should not turn on the opinion of one person, who may have some bias or may misapprehend the facts. In that situation, the accused can quickly become the convicted. Once an injustice has been done, it can be years, or more likely decades, before it is undone. We need only to consider cases such as that of Christy Walsh to understand what can go wrong.
	When the Government rightly implemented, in the Terrorism Act 2006, a move away from Diplock, why do we have these attempts to ensure that Diplock can continue in perpetuity, without being subject to renewal provisions or parliamentary scrutiny in future? The Bill recycles provisions that previous legislation was meant to repeal. Clauses 1 to 8 provide for the continuation of Diplock courts, but now on a permanent basis. Clauses 20 to 41 provide key emergency powers for the British Army; for example, to stop and question, to search, to arrest and to enter premises and vehicles. The Government tell us that the Bill normalises Northern Ireland, yet they are giving the Army powers that it has nowhere else.
	The Bill institutionalises the Diplock court and the powers of the British Army in the north. They are not temporary powers to be renewed every year; they are permanent and face no test of renewal. The Secretary of State should understand that the Bill will have an impact on the debate about the devolution of justice and policing. Its provisions will certainly have an effect on the implementation in the future of that devolution in practice.
	Of course, we realise that the British Army will shortly be down to garrison strength onlyat least if we can rely on the Government sticking to that commitment given in the joint declaration and elsewhere. We hope that as our security situation improves, powers will not be used as often as they were. In that context, how can we justify providing permanently for such powers? If the Government press ahead with those powers for the Army, which are supposedlythe Secretary of State tells usonly to be used in support of the police when the Army is called in aid, will the Army face the same accountability as the police in that situation? The police ombudsman has called for that.

Mark Durkan: I will return to that point later, but it is clear that the Secretary of State presumes that the powers being exercised by the Secretary of State would not be devolved. That is making quite an assumption. The parties in Northern Ireland that will be discussing questions of the devolution of justice and policing might have a very different attitude about whether those powers should be reserved for the Secretary of State or devolved. If a devolved Minister of justice is simply to be someone who lobbies the Secretary of State in the exercise of all sorts of sweeping reserved powers, it creates a very different picture of the devolution of justice and policing than some parties want to entertain or believed the Good Friday agreement promised.
	The question of whether the Army would be amenable to scrutiny or investigation by the police ombudsman in respect of its future powers is even more urgent when it comes to MI5. The Government tell us that the British Army has been reduced in size in the north, but they are proposing to expand the presence of MI5 there with an enhanced and enlarged role after October 2007. I hope that the Army will be pretty much confined to base, but it is quite clear that MI5 could be active across the north. Where accountability lies for MI5 is an issue that my hon. Friends will be addressing later in the debate. They will point out that only people who believe that they are subject to MI5 surveillance can bring complaints against the organisation. Victims who feel that they have been let down by MI5 incompetence or inactivity cannot bring any complaint. In any event, complaints to the investigatory powers tribunal go nowhere: not one has been upheld to date and no reasons have ever been given.
	The Bill compounds the culture of unaccountability of the intelligence services. As has been pointed out, it gives the Human Rights Commission welcome investigatory powers, but it is explicit that those powers are virtually non-existent when it comes to anything to do with intelligence services. Proposed new section 69B(5), inserted by clause 14, even explicitly prohibits the Human Rights Commission from investigating whether an intelligence service has acted
	in a way which is incompatible with... human rights.
	All that highlights an accountability gap, which will be created by the Government's proposals to expand MI5's role. The fact remains that where there is no accountability, we get incompetence and the withholding of information, as is quite clear in the Omagh case, where it took MI5 seven and a half years to pass on a warning about a bomb that went on to kill 29 people. The Government cannot let that pass.
	Currently, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has primacy for national security and the police ombudsman has investigated complaints involving national security again and again without difficultyand the sky has not fallen in. If MI5 is to take over primacy for national securitywe believe that it should notthere should at least be the same accountability and challenge in respect of how those functions are managed. That means giving the police ombudsman the power to investigate complaints against MI5, which we will propose as an amendment in Committee.
	In relation to Army powers, let us be very clear as well that just appointing another kind of reviewer, similar to the one for military complaints dealt with in clause 39, lacks rigour and will not command public confidence. Trying to achieve something in the same style for MI5 will not meet our point.
	We are making serious points and we have serious reservations about proposals that have huge implications for whether or not we have the Patten vision of policing. I want to be clear that this issue should not be used by Sinn Fein as an excuse not to deal with policing. The Government's proposed role for MI5 is no excuse for Sinn Fein refusing to urge people to pass information to the police about the rape of a teenage girl. Equally, questions in and around the devolution of justice is no excuse for Sinn Fein to delay its decision eitherespecially when, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said and the Secretary of State confirmed, significant powers have already been devolved from the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office to the Policing Board. That happened when the Policing Board was established and we saw the practice of those powers on decisions about the tenure of the previous Chief Constable and the appointment of the new Chief Constable. The NIO and the then Secretary of State were trying to control and influence those decisions and had to be reminded that they no longer had those powers.
	I can understand why Sinn Fein may want to pretend that some significant devolution has not already taken place and I also understand how it is trying to use the outstanding question of the transfer of ministerial powers as its big excuse for not having moved on policing to date. None of those matters should be used as an excuse for not moving now on the foot of the commitments given and received in the context of the negotiations at St. Andrews.
	There is an awful lot of dishonesty in and around the question of the devolution of justice. The fact is that parties, whether it be Sinn Fein or the DUP, have to know full well that a devolved Minister of justice is not going to be lifting the phone to senior police officers to say, Set my people free or I want you to go and arrest those people. A devolved Minister will simply not have that sort of function or role. The parties are deliberately exaggerating what is involved in that respect. It is time that we demystified the issue. I hope that the discussions in the programme for government sub-committee can de-clutter and remove a lot of the confusion and exaggeration on this whole issue. The test will be whether the parties want to remove a lot of the misapprehension.
	Sinn Fein is still relying on the excuse that, in the absence of the devolution of justice and policing, it cannot offer support for policing. It says that we have to ensure that policing in Northern Ireland is free from British control and that the test of that will be devolution. I have to say to the Secretary of StateI will now clarify for him my points about the implications of the Bill for devolution of justice and policingthat the legislation could well give those in Sinn Fein cause or excuse to say that there is a bigger remnant of British control regarding the future conduct of security, justice and policing in Northern Ireland than it had anticipated or envisaged. That is why I say that the Bill is pregnant with implications and potential complications.
	I assume that the Director of Public Prosecutions will be appointed by the devolved interest in future, but he may be influenced, on the Secretary of State's own indications, by national security considerations, which are, of course, outwith the devolved interest. The Government are very clear about that. In those circumstances, a devolved Minister of justice and a devolved Assembly could find themselves compromised and embarrassed by what is happening or not happening. They might have to say, Yes, I am the Minister of justice and, yes, we appoint these people, but we have absolutely no say and the Secretary of State's reserved powers are used. All I can do is lobby the Secretary of State about how someone we appoint actually conducts their role. That is not a satisfactory situation and it is certainly not the picture of the devolution of justice and policing that we have in mind. I do not believe that it is the picture of the devolution of justice and policing that Sinn Fein has in mind either.

Paul Goggins: With the Bill, it is important to be very specific about the powers that we are introducing, rather than running away with wider rhetoric. Yes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned national security, but what he meansthis is important in these deliberationsis that if a defendant has been charged with a serious offence in certain circumstances described in the Bill and the test is passed and if some specific intelligence about that defendant is a matter of great concern, obviously, the DPP should take that into account when making his decision. It is not a wide consideration of national security; it is a specific consideration in relation to that individual.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for that attempt to clarify. I hope that he can point us, either now or in future, to exactly where the Bill makes that very precise clarification. I see it nowhere in the Bill. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire touched on just how sweeping the conditions are: to exercise the powerto say, Diplock it will bethe DPP simply has to decide that there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired. There need not be a substantial risk or a serious risk. There is absolutely no test or qualification. There need only be a risk, and no one can test or ask on what that risk is based.
	From what we are hearing from Ministers, it seems that that risk can be based simply on a whisper coming from the intelligence services to say, This guy is one of ours, or Complications could emerge, so this is what we want done. That is not a legitimate interpretation of a risk to the administration of justice, so the Secretary of State's and the Minister's attempts on the issue give us more cause for concern. Let us remember that they introduced national security in relation to these powers. As I indicated earlier, I believe that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag about what is really motivating these powers.

William McCrea: Is the hon. Gentleman not concentrating an awful lot of his time in the debate on, and getting excited about, the subject of a Ministry of Policing and Justice, when the reality of the devolution of policing and justice and that ministry is not on the horizon?

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman makes a point coming from his political angle. I will not be drawn into that debate in relation to the question of the timing of the devolution of justice and policing or anything else. We want it to happen sooner rather than later. We did not agree with the DUP picking up the vetoes on the timing of that question, as it did in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which the House passed in May. We believe that, if all parties work properly on these issues, we can remove a lot of the apprehensions.
	If we work on the practicalities, we find that the main ministerial powers to be transferred relate to getting the budget for policingnot even setting the budget, because that is done by the Chief Constable and the Policing Boardand to the legislative function involved in providing the criminal and other legislation that is needed for good policing or for the police to perform on behalf of the public. That is the main ministerial function involved. The interesting test then relates to some of the Secretary of State's powers, to which he has referredsome of them are courtesy of the Bill and others are existing powerswhich he is clearly now assuming that he will retain in the context of devolution and that the most that a devolved Minister can do is sue to or lobby the Secretary of State in exercising his powers.

Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman now telling the House that his policy is to reject the miscellaneous law and that we should change the 2006 Act to give a freeway for Sinn Fein to get into power?

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman knows that when that Bill was being considered in the House we had tabled amendments that would have unpicked the triple lock. Indeed, during consideration of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill, which was before the House only a couple of weeks ago, there was not time for us to reach such amendments, not least thanks to how Opposition Members conducted the debate on their own clause. Again, we had tabled amendments to that Bill that would have unlocked the triple lock. We want to enable the devolution of justice and policing to take place, alongside the other devolved powers. We believe that, when we have devolved ministerial powers for justice and policing, it will be the consummation of political change on the one hand and policing change on the other. Devolution will take place in a way that shows that people have confidence both in policing, as it will then be conducted, and in the durability and sustainability of the political structures in Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman knows that our point is that all parties should explicitly give that support, which is why we had no issue with, for example, extending the terms of the ministerial pledge of office to include that very statement. What we are saying to Sinn Fein is that the absence of the devolution of justice and policing to date is no excuse for it not having done what it needs to do in relation to policing. Even the concerns that we have recorded today about MI5 and the residual Diplock provisions in the Bill should not be excuses for Sinn Fein failing to do what it needs to do on policing. They are valid issues and complications for Sinn Fein and ourselves, and hopefully other parties, to pursue in the context of the discussions that we have to have on the devolution of justice and policing. However, they should not of themselves be impediments or excuses for Sinn Fein not doing what it should do to fulfil the democratic norms and to return the confidence that the public, Governments and others have vested in it in this long-running process.
	I want to remind the Government that we will table amendments in Committeenot just on the MI5 question, but on the powers on the Human Rights Commission. Although the Secretary of State has said that the powers are extended significantly, we should remember that those extended powers come into play only after 2008. The qualifications and limitations on the exercise of those extra powers are such that they leave one thinking that the Government now spend more time suspecting the people who are on or working for the Human Rights Commission than

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman take some solace and encouragement from the comments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? In response to an intervention about what the judge could do if the judge was not happy with the DPP's decision to have a non-jury court, he said The judge will have an argument with the DPP. In other words, the Secretary of State himself wants there to be some kind of sanction for the judge, so presumably clause 7 is an oversight.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position? He has indicated clearly to the House that his party is not in favour of a continuation of Diplock courts, with which I disagree. He has indicated that he is not one bit pleased with the proposals in the Bill for a continuation of non-jury trials. How exactly would the Social Democratic and Labour party deal with the really serious problem in Northern Ireland of jury intimidation and intimidation of witnesses by loyalist paramilitaries, and dissident republicans and traditional republicansmembers of the Provisional IRA? How does the SDLP suggest that we could deal with that?

Mark Durkan: The Bill makes some provisions in respect of jurors that we do not take issue with. We see the need to protect jurors. However, when the Government presented the Terrorism Act 2006, they were clear that the circumstances were going to allow Diplock courts to be abolished after, at the latest, July 2008. There is now provision for them to continue as an available option in perpetuity, without being subject to renewal legislation in the House. That is a huge change. That has happened in circumstances in which the Government are telling us that the security situation and the prospects for the future are even better than they were then. However, now we can no longer have those sorts of time limits. That is the point that we are making to the Government.
	It seems that there are people in government and in other parties who treat the Human Rights Commission as though it were some sort of subversive interest as far as Northern Ireland life is concerned. The Human Rights Commission is tasked with ensuring that people in Northern Ireland have their human rights upheld and respected. Where it has doubts or questions about that, it can have recourse to assistance and challenges can be made that will support it in that regard. That is about good government, accountability and creating guarantees for the citizens of Northern Ireland that the sort of abuses that were suffered in the past are not going to be repeated in the future. It is a guarantee that no political interest or political power in the futuredevolved or otherwisecan set aside people's human rights considerations and international obligations. Given all the doubts and fears that people in Northern Ireland have, I would have thought that everybody would want the assurance that there is a strong and meaningful human rights body, rather than a token agency.

Patrick Cormack: I will be rather briefer, I hope, than the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), although of course he took several lengthy interventions.
	I give my broad support to the Bill, but as the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), knows full well, I have reservations about it, some of which members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee share. I do not know whether the Committee members share all my reservations because we have not discussed the Bill in great detail. That is my first objection.
	There was not the need for hurry on the Bill that the Secretary of State suggestedit could have been introduced next year. I would have preferred it to have been introduced after we had seen the Assembly re-established in Northern Ireland and working properly. That could have been done, although the Secretary of State had the right to take the decision that he made. I also would have preferred the Bill to have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny; many of the points raised in interventions have underlined the wisdom of that course.
	I intervened on the Secretary of State to say that there was unanimity in the Committee on the principle of the need, reluctantly, to continue to hold certain trials without juries. Indeed, that was one of the recommendations that were made in our report on organised crime in July. Equally, however, although I was grateful that the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General met the Committee and discussed these matters with us, the Secretary of State knows that I would have preferred the ultimate decision to have rested with the Attorney-General. That is not the same as what others have advocatedthat the judge should have the final saybut I believe that the First Law Officer of the Crown would have been an appropriate person. I trust that those points can be debated in greater detail in Committee and put to the test.
	Regardless of where we sit in the House, I think that we are all waiting anxiously to find out what will happen in the first two months of next year. I was glad that the hon. Member for Foyle made this point about Sinn Fein: whatever hang-ups or reservations Sinn Fein might have about the devolution of policing and justice, that should not prevent it from signing up to the police aspects now. He made that point unequivocally and I am grateful that he did so.

David Anderson: This debate is about what is and what is not normal. The hon. Gentleman knows better than I do that this is a matter of trust. People from certain areas of Northern Ireland give the commission the trust that they do not give to other bodies. We may not like it, but they say, I've got faith in what these people do. If it carries out an investigation that backs up the work that other agencies are doing, surely that is in everybody's interests and is the right way to move forward.
	Earlier, I intervened on the Secretary of State about the extra powers for the police and the Army. I share some of the grave concerns that have been expressed. I am particularly worried that people may use this as a political ploy, and say, You're moving the goalposts, so we cannot sign up to policing in the way that we believe we should. I have said on the record that I believe that members of Sinn Fein and any other people who want to involve themselves in democratic processes in this House or in any other democratic part of our society should support the police and the work that they do. They should work with the police irrespective of whether they like them individually or respect what they have allegedly been involved with in the past. If they want to play a part as democratic representatives, they owe it to the people they represent to be involved. I hope that the Bill does not get in the way of that.
	The current situation is not normal. If we say to everybody in Northern Ireland, We want you to act as normally, in every sense, as people in the rest of Great Britain, we have to say the same to the police and to the Army. The Secretary of State said I will read his speech in  Hansard with great interestthat there are various areas where the police and the Army are not allowed to go under the existing legislation. I would have thought they could already go to all those areas, so why insert these additional powers? I think that pregnant was the right term to use. We all know what we end up with when there is pregnancy in an unblessed relationshipI hope that is not so in this case.
	My final point concerns the private security industry. As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said, it is right and proper to work with people in the industry, who work with everybody from the daft to the deadly. They need to be trained and looked after properly so that they are not exploited, but they also need to be capable of doing the job properly.
	I will look with great interest at what emerges in Committee and on Report. I hope that the Bill's Third Reading will be the start of a really happy new year for everyone in Northern Ireland, and I express that sentiment to everybody in this House today.

Ian Paisley: When Governments bring in legislation, they often face the criticism that it is too little, too late. On the contrary, I fear that the centrepiece of this legislation represents a move too far and too soon. The record will show that I am no supporter of the Diplock courts. In fact, I served on the Committee of this House that considered the original Bill. I have always believed that it is right, where possible, that an accused be entitled to trial by his peers. When circumstances are not normal, however, severer laws must apply and courts must function in spite of the threats put on them.
	I want to pay tribute to the judges who served in the Diplock courts, and to their integrity, faithfulness, honesty and courage. Of course, we should put it on record that some of them paid the supreme price for that. I believe with all my heart that those people did that job in a very difficult day and time, and they should be praised and not blamed. The House brought them into existence, and it should show its gratitude to them.
	Those judges also administered the system in a manner that was widely accepted. After the first rows over such courts, it gradually came to be known that they were doing their best under the circumstances to give justice to those who were brought before them. While I do not want judge-only cases to continue beyond what is necessary, I believe that the interests of justice will be better served if they are not prematurely removed. That is my attitude to the Bill. While the Democratic Unionist party can see strong arguments for reform, we do not believe that the environment exists for the change to be made at present.
	I remind the House that there is a regulation that can de-schedule many such cases. In fact, 85 to 90 per cent. of scheduled offences are now de-scheduled. Even now, there is no reason why other cases cannot be followed by de-scheduling. We need to keep that in mind. Normalisation in this area can only take place of its own accord when we see that it is time that it should be done.
	It should be put on record that, in the original debates, Unionist jurors received the most criticism. They were attacked on both sides of the House on the grounds that they could not be trusted. I never agreed with that. I believe that there are good jurors in both Unionist and nationalist communities who want to see justice done and right prevail. I objected strongly, of course, to the many speeches attacking the moral character of Unionist jurors. I utterly reject such claims.
	I believe that the time has come to move away from what will ultimately be a sop to those who do not like justice at all. I am afraid that part of the Bill has a political colour about it, and that an attempt has been made to reach a conclusion by making offers to people. No Government have the right to lower the standard of justice in order to do a political deal.
	I welcome very much the statement made in the House today by the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party about the attitude of his party to policing. I agree that the time has come for the Government to tell Sinn Fein that it must agree to policing. I am not in normal times a supporter of power sharing, and in particular I would not be a supporter of those with whom we are asked to share power, but if in these conditions people have to accept power sharing and do so without trying to renegotiate itif they bow the knee and say, Yes, all right. We have to do thatI expect the other side to adopt the same attitude and respect the police. I welcome what the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) said about democrats having to accept the honesty in policing.
	I am glad that today's debate is different from the debate 10 years ago. We are pleased that everyone is coming to see that the time has come when justice must be respected, the courts must be respected and the police must be respected. I was glad to hear a notable nationalist, who professed to be a republican, say on the radio, Nobody but the Police Service of Northern Ireland can help us in our community. We need them there. When the wave of lawlessness is flowing rapidly and in spate in many places, we need the police. We should give our loyalty to them. That does not mean that we have to believe in the absolute integrity of every police officer or that we do not protest if he is not doing what is right. I am talking about proper respect for the police and obedience to the laws of this country. That needs to be established and reinforced.
	Having had the St. Andrews agreement, I trust that the Government will not allow themselves to be dragged into a renegotiation of policing. That has to stand. If there is any attempt to change it, it will be the end. We must be sincere about this and say it: changetamper withwhat was agreed at St. Andrews, based on everyone having to bow the knee and accept the rule of law, and the Government finish all negotiations. That would be a dreadful thing at this time. None of us wants it, but we must remember that it is not our decision; it is the decision of those who have to face up to the problem. They have to face it, and the Government have to force them to face it. The Government cannot have two ways of negotiating, in which they say to Unionists, You must do this, and then say to the IRA, Well, we might be able to dilute that a bit. We might have some waysome form of wordsto do that. It is not a form of words that we want, but real action. The people of Northern Irelandthe nationalist people and the Unionist peoplewill give their verdict whether that is done or not. That is what we have to face.
	I do not want to detain the House, but it needs to look at the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, because it is not really a human rights commission, not the way that it is run today. I suffered from a vicious slander by the current chairwoman of the commission. In a radio broadcast, she accused me of taking a woman who was responsible for security at Stormont and getting my son to hold her until I beat her. That was broadcast all over Northern Ireland. Of course my lawyers moved; of course the BBC had to crawl and give an absolute withdrawal, and the woman had to crawl and make an absolute withdrawal. Let me be perfectly honest: I benefited a little financially. I was not worried about that, however. I was worried about my name. The Bible says that a minister of religion should be a striker, and I was not going to be a striker.
	Then, having lost her seat in the Assembly, the woman was given her position on the Human Rights Commission. We were told by the Government that she was the perfect person for the position. If that had been done on the other side of the campif a Unionist had slandered a nationalist or a republican, if that person had gone to court and received a payment and it had been proved that he was in the right, and if he had been elevated in that way, I can tell the House that there would have been some riot.
	The case has arisen of another person who was appointed to a committee. Action is currently being taken, and I can make no further comment, but I say this to the House: how can the people of Northern Ireland depend on that person to preside over a human rights commission when she herself was not prepared to give a person the human right to go about his lawful business in the Stormont Parliament? I think that she is not fit to do that, and that she should not be there. The sooner the Government remove her from her position and replace her with a neutral person, the better it will be for everyone.
	I think that the Human Rights Commission has failed. What will a debate on the legality of war in Iraq do for the ordinary people on the streets of Belfast who are trying to secure their human rights and go about their business? As for Northern Ireland's involvement in the 11-plus, everyone knows my view on it, but I do not think it is a matter for the Human Rights Commission. There are other matters, too. The commission is always putting its foot in matters that are none of its business. It is time that it was reined in. I make a plea to the Minister: he must rein in the commission, and say, There is your bailiwick. Yours is not a worldwide, global appointment. You have a job to do for Northern Ireland: get on and do the job for Northern Ireland.
	I hope that in Committee we shall have an opportunity to table amendments, and to debate some aspects of this matter. I trust that today's debate, when it is reported in Northern Ireland, will prove useful to the people there. I take great encouragement from some of the things said by other speakers, and I believe that there is a way forward. Let us not be dragged backwards; let us take that way forward.

Eddie McGrady: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I welcomed what I took to be his total, unqualified commitment to the pursuit of partnership in the administration of Northern Ireland. I hope that that, in conjunction with the commitment of the associated parties, will bear fruit in the near future, and that there will be a true partnership developing trust for all the people.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Human Rights Commission, I suggest to him that he may be slightly prejudiced because of his adverseas he sees itpersonal relationship with members of the commission. I do not think anyone in the House would deny the necessity of human rights, or the desirability of a commission to deal with that important subject.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) strongly articulated many of the problems that my party identifies in this Bill, but that does not mean that there are not also positive things in it. One of the positives isto follow on from the comments of the right hon. Member for North Antrimthe giving of investigatory powers to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Had they been in place earlier, there might have been different outcomes in certain matters in times past.
	At present, the commission does not have the power to call on persons or to call for papers, or, where it is following a particular line of investigation that requires entry, to have the right to enter. There is nothing unique about such an organisation having such powers. That is laid down in the United Nations Paris principles on human rightsand, after all, a human rights body must have some investigatory powers, or how will it carry out its investigations? If there are no powers to get answers, there is no point in having an investigation, and therefore no point in having a commission. So such powers are essential.
	There is also an anomaly in Ireland. The Irish Human Rights Commission has investigatory powers that were also to apply to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, but somehow they did notthey fell off the table, so to speak. In the north, the Equality Commission already has investigatory powers as, obviously, does the police ombudsman, and the children's commissioner also rightly has powers of entry and inspection. Those are normal and necessary powers for any body to have that protects their citizens and carries out investigations on behalf of the community.
	We pointed out the failure to give those powers to the human rights commission during the passage through Parliament of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Secretary of State at that time gave a commitment that although it did not have those powers, full co-operation would be given to the commission in its investigations. As far as I know, that co-operation did not happen. The commission found itself on occasion refused entry into places of detention when it required to gain entry to pursue complaints that it was investigating.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There are many Members in this Chamber whom I would sometimes wish to blast atthey are sitting to my right on the Democratic Unionist party Benchesbut the hon. Gentleman is not one of them.
	I have a simple inquiry. The Paris principles to which the hon. Gentleman has rightly referred govern national human rights commissions, and therefore they are applicable to the Irish Human Rights Commission, but they are not applicable to a regional human rights commission which is what the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is as Northern Ireland is a region of the United Kingdom.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which gives me the opportunity to respondalthough not as blastingly as she didthat the UN principles state that where there is no national organisation, as there is not in the situation we are discussing, the rights and privileges of such a commission should extend to regional commissions. The UN has been supportive of investigatory powers being given to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
	Often, what the Government give with one hand they claw back with the other, and that is what is really happening in the Bill before us. For example, and as Members have said, the commission can use its investigatory powers only in respect of matters arising after 1 January 2008. It cannot access any information or documents before that date, even if they are relevant to situations arising after that date. So it will be years before the commission can carry out proper investigations and get a full picture of that which it is investigating. It seems that six years of waiting for these powers is not long enough. In practice, under the terms of clause 19, it could well be another four or five years before the commission can carry out proper investigations.
	Even then, the Bill provides for huge exceptions to the commission's powers. Extraordinarilythere has already been much debate about thisit is expressly prohibited from considering whether any of the intelligence services have acted in any way that is incompatible with human rights. Under the terms of proposed new section 69B(5), which clause 14 would insert into the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the commission is prohibited from dealing with any other matters concerning human rights, and the intelligence services. We need to be clear about this: it is not merely that the commission will not have the power to demand to speak to MI5 officials or to see their documents; it has no right to ask for such information. So in this regard, it will actually have fewer powers than it already has.
	The commission can, however, investigate other human rights abuses, and in the course of those investigations, it might find that it needs access to intelligence material. It can ask, but there is absolutely no chance of getting such access. As the Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks, it can take the matter to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, but it will not succeed. The commission has to prove not only that the releasing to it of such information would not damage national security, but that the refusal to release that information was irrational and that no reasonable intelligence agency would behave in that way. That is what proposed new section 69B(2)(d) really means, because that is the standard that applies to judicial reviews.
	This is all the more worrying at a time when the Government want substantially to expand MI5's role in Northern Ireland. At the moment, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has primacy in respect of national security, and the police ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints about its handling of these matters. Such accountability has helped enormously in building confidence in the new PSNI and the new beginning to policing. Time and again, the police ombudsman's office has investigated complaints that have gone to the heart of national security, such as the Omagh case, which is currently at trial, and Stormontgate. We have yet to hear anybody, including the Government, complain about the Ombudsman's involvement. Nobody has come out publicly even to attempt to argue that this is a bad thing, so why introduce a measure preventing the ombudsman from pursuing those lines of inquiry?
	The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) mentioned Osama bin Laden, and in that regard there is a peculiar anomaly, which I have mentioned before. A terrorist who is aware that the intelligence service is monitoring him has the right to make a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. However, a person who is unaware that they are being monitored, and who is perhaps suffering an injustice through that process, has no rights whatsoever. That point emerged strongly during the Omagh trial, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned. It took seven and a half years for that to be exposed, which is not acceptable.
	The Bill raises many issues that could be politically damaging to the process that is taking place, without embracing fully the need for a full human rights scenario in Northern Ireland. I think that all hon. Members will agree that we were able to build a police service that has inspired cross-community confidence. We need to do the same for the investigatory powers of the commission, especially in terms of MI5, because what is possible now will not be possible after the passing of this legislation.
	The Bill contains many good provisions, which we will support, but I ask the Government to consider the remarks made by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members today and the proceedings in Committee, and take on board some of the practical problems, the solution of which could enhance the ability of the community to move forward from the dark days of the past three decades.

Sammy Wilson: I wish to make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has done already, that the Bill is unnecessary and could be dangerous to the pursuit of security in Northern Ireland. The situation does not warrant such changes. As the Secretary of State suggested in his speech, the Bill is part of the political process towards normalisation and many of us believe that that has been driven more by the demands of Sinn Fein than by the situation on the ground.
	Reference has already been made to some of reports by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, in which it is recognised that the policing situation in Northern Ireland is not yet normal. Indeed, some witnesses were not even prepared to be named when they appeared before a Committee of this House, which does not suggest that people would be happy with a jury system. We must bear in mind the fear of the influence of the paramilitaries that still exists.
	Some academic studies have been done on the issue, such as The Jury System in Contemporary Ireland: In the Shadow of a Troubled Past, in which the authors discuss the need to move away from the Diplock court system. However, they concluded:
	At the same time, while paramilitary organisations continue to operate, there are likely to continue to be certain cases which have a paramilitary connection where the risks of juror intimidation may be as great as they ever were.
	For that reason alone, it is essential that a discretionary power is maintainedalthough we think that it is too weakso that all cases do not have to be heard before a jury.
	The risk of intimidation is fairly high. Indeed, some cases have already broken down because of jury tampering. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we put a case to him in which eight people were involved in a 1 million cigarette heist. When the case went to court, there was evidence of jury tampering, the trial collapsed and the accused walked free. So we already have some warning signals that, even under the present regime, inappropriate cases are sent for jury trials with consequences that benefit only those engaged in criminal activity.
	It has already been said today that under the present regime it is possible to move further towards a non-jury trial system when appropriate. Already, 85 to 90 per cent. of offences are descheduled and can be tried before a jury. Why is the existing mechanism not to be used in the future? The only conclusion to be drawn is the one arrived at by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrimthat to a certain extent the proposals are coloured by a political necessity, rather than a legal or security necessity. They must be politically driven, as a mechanism already exists that would allow us to move towards jury trials, as and when that is deemed suitable.
	The presumption in favour of jury trials will cause the DPP for Northern Ireland to respond to political pressure and opt for those trials in connection with many more offences, whether or not that is appropriate or safe. The Bill will give extra impetus to those who want to drive the system in that direction.
	I know that SDLP is concerned that decisions by the DPP cannot be challenged, save in very limited circumstances. However, legal teams in Northern Ireland often trawl for disclosure about involvement in a paramilitary group or paramilitary intimidation, and the Superintendents Association of Northern Ireland made it clear in its response to the consultation document that that can prejudice the person who makes such information available. The Government are right not to leave the door to judicial review wide open, as the result in many cases would be that trials would collapseas has happened in the past.

Sammy Wilson: That might be a difficulty for the hon. Lady and the SDLP, but my party believes that there should be a presumption in favour of non-jury trials anyway, so that is not a big issue for us. The assumption behind many of the complaints aired today is that non-jury trials deliver a lesser standard of justice than jury trials. However, the evidenceat least from our part of the United Kingdomis that many of the miscarriages of justice that have occurred were not in non-jury courts. The headline miscarriage of justice cases occurred in jury courts, so I do not have the same concern as the hon. Lady about the lack of opportunity for people to challenge the decision of the DPP. As there is already a presumption to move to jury trials, and that 85 to 90 per cent. of scheduled offences are already being descheduled so that they can be heard in jury courts, there is sufficient movement in a direction that I believe is dangerous in present circumstances.
	As has been pointed out, we are not happy about the proposals to move towards jury trials, but if we must do so, one of the safeguards that we welcome is the fact that at least pre-emptory challenge has been removed. In Northern Ireland in the past each individual could make 12 pre-emptory challenges, and one of the people who briefed me on the Bill told me about the old saying that in England when the jury was chosen the trial was ready to begin, but that in Ireland when the jury was chosen the trial was finished.
	When someone can challenge jurors without reason, there is a great danger that the jury is made up only of people they believe will be sympathetic to them. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee mentioned that in our report we pointed out that one of the big challenges in Northern Ireland in the future would be dealing with criminal gangs. If the system was not changed, there would be a real possibility that in a case involving six gang members, there could be 72 challenges to the jury so that eventually the accused would have a jury that they felt would be sympathetic.
	It is essential to bring that process into line with the rest of the UK. However, it will not stop perverse decisions by juries, especially in areas where there is a strong republican or indeed loyalist influence. Some of the people chosen for the jury might not feel that criminal activity by a paramilitary organisation was all that bad and that it was one of the things that had to be done to raise funds. Just three people could influence the decision in favour of the accused, so there is great danger of perverse judgments and we must be careful about that.
	The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who is no longer in the Chamber, and other Members spoke about the powers for the Army to stop, search and arrest people and so on. They were jumping up and down about that, but I have watched operations as a member of the Policing Board and I can tell them that sometimes it is impossibleespecially where the police ask for Army supportto distinguish the roles of the police and Army personnel. When the police and the Army operate together, Army personnel need the same powers of arrest and search as the police require. When they have to deal with a fracas, a riot or public disorder, are the Army personnel supposed to leave it to the police to make the arrests or to do the stopping and searching? When they are liaising on the ground they need the same powers.

Sammy Wilson: I am saying that where the police and Army are operating together on the ground, the Army personnel need the same powersto stop, search and arrest people and perhaps to search premisesas the police. The investigatory powers of the Army are governed by the Army's own strictures and that is how it should be. Given how the police ombudsman's office has abused its powers in relation to the police, I would certainly not want its powers extended to investigating the Army. I believe that the powers given to the Army in the Bill are essential. On the rare occasions when the Army is called in to help the police, it is essential that it has those powers.
	My last point is about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Here is a body that is totally unproved. I was trying to think of any high-profile cases in which it has been involved during its current life. I gain the impression from speaking to people in Northern Ireland that if they are aware of the NIHRC at all, they are aware only of the infighting that occurred when half the people who served on it dropped out half way along and refused even to go to the meetings. The chief executive or chairman of the NIHRCwhatever he is calledleft or was put out because of the way in which the commission operated.
	The NIHRC sought a role for itself, of course, mostly by overstepping the mark and involving itself in things for which it had no remit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim pointed out, it condemned the Iraqi war as illegal. Whether it is illegal or not, I do not think that it is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Some of us may have views on that issue, but it is certainly not the proper role of the commission to investigate it.

Lady Hermon: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking so many interventions. I may be absolutely wrong on this, but I had understood that when the Secretary of State set up the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, he wanted to make it more representative of the community, as there was not a present serving member who was also a member of the DUP. Is that correct and, if so, does the party have no way of trying to influence the NIHRC to make it more sensible in its judgments?

Sammy Wilson: It would be most bizarre and we might well come in for some condemnation if we were seen to be pulling the strings of someone who is supposed to be an independent member of the commission, albeit coming from a particular persuasion. We do not seek to do that, as we do not believe that it would be right, but it does not affect my judgment on the commission. I do not believe that that body has added anything to Northern Ireland or, indeed, provided any additional safeguards. If one looks at the remit it sought for itself, it seems to have wandered around looking for one, involving itself with things with which it should not be involved. A further worrying aspect is the powers given to it by the Bill.
	First, the NIHRC is given powers that are already exercised by other bodies. For example, it is given the power to visit and investigate prisons, but Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons already has that power. What additional work will the commission do? Are we saying that Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons is not doing its job correctly? Are there defects in its remit and, if so, should not the Government address them rather than give another body power to carry out work in respect of prisons?
	The other thing, of course, is that when a body, such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, or especially a body that wishes to prove itself, is given additional powers, there is always a chance that those powers will be used zealously and, indeed, over-zealously. It is very unfortunate that some Government Members use the example of the police ombudsman's office. One has only to look at its record to see that it has abused its investigatory powers abominably. For example, in my constituency, a raid on a former a special branch officer's house was carried out. That man was suffering from severe heart problems. He was certainly no threat to society, yet six cars full of investigators rolled up at his house. It was not sufficient to send six cars; the TV stations were rung up, so that they could come to film the raid. Why? So that the police ombudsman's office could be seen to be doing something. That is the problem with giving such bodies, which are looking for a role for themselves, the kind of additional power proposed. They will use them over-zealously.

Sammy Wilson: This is the amazing point. Let me just take the last point that the hon. Gentleman made: the commission will have the job of proofing Government policies. I thought that Departments already had to do the job of providing equality-proofing and so on for legislation and other proposals. Are we saying that we not only need Departments to do that jobDepartments very often bring in consultants to do that job on their behalfbut that we need to bring in the commission to do more equality-proofing? I am trying to make that point about over-regulation and the problem of looking for roles for bodies when there is not really a role for them.

Mark Durkan: The point is that, although Departments have that responsibility, they cannot be relied on to discharge it fairly and competently. That is why they rely on consultants. Even when they rely on consultants, as we saw with the electronic human resources contract, the Department of Finance and Personnel said that it would not even release the evaluation of the quality impact assessment on the very policy of outsourcing until it had already let the contract. That is the proof that the Departments or their consultants cannot be relied on.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the equality screening exercises that the Departments undertook all had to be approved in advance. Their schemes had to be approved by the Equality Commission, and rightly so. There were huge variants in how Departments were prepared to do that and they needed to rely on the advice of a credible third interestnamely, the Equality Commission. As a Minister, I was glad to at least be informed of the advice from the NIHRC, because I was dealing with the Office of Law Reform and some of the law reform measures that we brought forward in the Assembly meant that there was a need for advice from both the NIHRC and the Equality Commission, so that we could get the balance of the law reform right.

Alasdair McDonnell: I want to be brief and to focus on some of the emergency powers and what they mean. In the 1970s, the Diplock courts were an integral part of the injustice system in Northern Ireland. There is ample evidence to prove that people were abused and beaten in Castlereagh holding stationsomething that I and my colleague, the former Member for West Belfast, Joe Hendron, highlighted time and time again. In many cases, those people were convicted solely on confessions extracted under abuse and pressure. Later, there were virtual show trials in which people were convicted on the word of unreliable accomplices, or supergrasses. I am pleased, as are many in our society, that these abuses are no longer with us, but that does not make a one-judge, no-jury court right or desirable. Such a system leaves far too much hanging on the opinion of one personone judge alonerather than that of the 12 members of the jury who should be in place.
	We must ask ourselves why we are legislating permanently to install such a system. At least part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000, which used to provide for the Diplock courts, had to be renewed on a regular basis. The Bill, however, will provide for Diplock courts for good.

Alasdair McDonnell: No, I do not. This was just another spoke in the wheel of the flawed system of justice. The problem added to injustice. False confessions were extracted and fed into the court system. Yes, some cases were thrown out, but others were not.
	The Diplock system was once an emergency provision, but the Bill will make it a permanent scar on our justice system, without even the basic safeguard that exists in the Irish Republic, where three judges sit on the special criminal court. The Social Democratic and Labour party believes and hopes that the provisions in the Bill that will protect the identity of jurors will mean that Diplock courts will be used much less frequently. However, it is not enough that we use an unfair system less often. I do not think that we should use one-judge, no-jury courts at all, if they can be avoided in any way. I believe that the time has come at which they can be avoided.
	We should be worried when we look at the test that will be applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions when determining whether to use a Diplock court because it is strikingly broad. Clause 1 provides that there can be a trial on indictment without a jury if the DPP decides that there is
	a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired ... with a jury,
	or if he suspects that any of the conditions set out in subsections (3) to (6) are met. Only a risk is required under the test; the evidence pointing towards a non-jury trial need not be substantial.
	The conditions are wide open. If, for example, a person was merely a friend or relative of someone who belonged to, or had belonged to, a proscribed organisation, it would be enough to satisfy one of the conditions. That condition could apply to a vast number of people in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it could very well catch several hon. Members.
	Worse still, clause 7 provides that no court may question any decision taken by the DPP in relation to the issue of a certificate. The clause even secures a derogation from the Human Rights Act 1998 because of the sweeping nature of that power.
	Clauses 20 to 41 provide the Army and others with emergency powers. The provisions are almost identical to sections 81 to 95 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Clauses 1 to 7 are also closely modelled on provisions of that Act. All those sections of the 2000 Act are particular to Northern Ireland, but at the time of the joint declaration of 2003, the Government promised the repeal of counter-terrorist legislation that was particular to Northern Ireland. We thus have a major contradiction. Parliament even legislated to repeal aspects of the 2000 Act through the Terrorism Act 2006. However, it seems that the Government take away one law and slap back another. In the Bill, back from the dead, are key provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 that are particular to Northern Ireland. Of course, we recognise that some of the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 that are particular to Northern Ireland are not reproduced in the legislation, and I want to put that on the record, but the most important elements, such as the provisions on Diplock courts and emergency powers for the Army, are reproduced, but this time, they are put in permanently, and will not require renewal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) stated, that is normalising the abnormal.
	Before concluding, I want to draw attention to clause 45, which I welcome. It requires private security firms to be licensed in future, and makes it an offence to provide security services without a licence. That has been included to prevent paramilitary control of security services, and we warmly welcome the measure, because clearly there have been attempts by some paramilitary groups to extort money through the use of bogus security companies.
	Another area in which the Independent Monitoring Commission has warned of paramilitary control is the field of community restorative justice, which was mentioned earlier by the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). The SDLP supports community restorative justice in principle, but we believe that there must be a proper system of regulation. One of the safeguards for which we have argued is a requirement on the groups concerned to be licensed and properly regulated, in a similar way to security firms. Time and again the Government have told us that it would not be possible to put such regulations in place, yet the Bill sets a precedent for security firms in that regard. We would warmly welcome the extension of that precedent to CRJ groups, and the Bill is proof that that would not be impossible.
	Let us use that positive precedent to get restorative justice right, and to ensure high standards in that very important work. After all, if licensing is necessary for bouncers and security companies, surely it is important for groups working at the heart of the criminal justice system. I hope that the Government, Ministers and others will reflect on that. For our part, we shall work on the proposals, and will make suggestions in Committee.

William McCrea: Indeed. We must look at some of the issues that the hon. Member for Foyle brought to our attention, because many of his remarks focused on the magical devolution of policing and justice. He was concerned about the fact that the Minister had the power to do this, that or the other after devolution, and about the impact of measures in the Bill. I intervened on him, and may I remind him, honestly and honourably, that a devolved Ministry for policing and justice is not on the radar, so any date for such a thing is not a reality? Rather than become excited about the issue, he can rest for a considerable period, because all is well, and those responsibilities will remain with the mainland United Kingdom. That should give him great comfort.
	The hon. Gentleman objected, too, to the powers given to the British Army to search people. I do not know what kind of world he lives in, because he should know very well that it has had search powers for years. Why should not Her Majesty's forces, exercise responsibility and protect the people of Northern Ireland, if they have been brought in to do so? They have exercised those responsibilities carefully, even though they have been subject to great provocation for many years. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Her Majesty's forces who have come to the Province and put themselves in harm's way to ensure that we have as normal a society as possible under the trying circumstances created by the constant threat from the Provisional IRA and other terrorist groups.
	The Army has been brought in to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland. There was a great furore about Army personnel going out on patrol without the police. If they stopped someone on the road, they could not search them until a policeman arrived. That was quite ridiculous, given the terrorist threat and the abnormal situation, We must acknowledge that we are not yet in a normal situation in the Province. We long for that daywe hope that it will come soonbut there is a constant terrorist threat against the people of Northern Ireland. Terrorism must be put down or crushed in Northern Ireland, because the terrorists have not gone away. Many people want to close their eyes to that fact. I would love to live in an area where liberty and freedom from terrorism are a reality, but I can assure the hon. Member for Foyle that it is very different in the area where I live and in the west of the Province.

Mark Durkan: If we set aside our obvious differences about the way in which those powers for the Army were exercised in the past, does he accept that the Government made a commitment to repeal those powers? It is a fact that previous legislation purported to repeal those powers, and that the Bill effectively restores and recycles some of them? Perhaps it was the hon. Gentleman's party that persuaded the Government to do so, but it is a reversal of their position.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a certain irony that MI5 has taken over security gathering in Northern Ireland because the SDLP, along with Sinn Fein, were the very people who complained about special branch and who said they could not trust special branch and that it was a force within a force? Now they have finished up with a force outside a force.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate and to bring it back to the subject of the Bill.
	I was disappointed that the Secretary of State, when marking the passing of the Diplock courts, which he facilitated for reasons of political expediency, did not take the opportunity to pay tribute to the courage and bravery of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Through 30 years of bloody mayhem, the members of the judiciary paid with their lives. Their families also had to experience threats and intimidation. Whether they sat as one judge in a Diplock court or otherwise, the judiciary in Northern Ireland served with impartiality and fearless independence throughout all those years. It would have been nice if the Secretary of State had paid tribute to its members.
	I warmly commend the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and, indeed, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea)he said this at the beginning of his long remarksfor paying tribute to the judiciary in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that. I was sorry that when commenting on three judges, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made the flippant, disrespectful and unnecessary remark that, given the context of Northern Ireland, it would have to be one judge from one community, one judge from the other community, and then another judge to be impartial. That has never been an issue in Northern Ireland. All judges, of whatever religion, have served all the community fearlessly and independently.

Lady Hermon: As I named the hon. Gentleman, it was right that he should have the opportunity to correct the record, because that was not the impression that he left us with. I welcome that.
	I want to make it clear at the outset that I favour retaining Diplock courts for the foreseeable future. As I have told the Minister, I bitterly regret that the Government have conceded, for reasons of political expediency, to end Diplock courts by July 2007.
	As the Secretary of State failed to do so, let me refer to the Northern Ireland Office's own consultation paper on the replacement arrangements for the Diplock court system, published in August 2006. The Secretary of State told us today that things had improved greatly, and mercifully they have. But in its paper the Northern Ireland Office says that even now, in 2006, at least 60 Diplock trials take place each year: one a week. These are not Mickey Mouse cases, but very serious cases involving intimidation and threats.
	A number of Members, including the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, referred to the evidence given to the Committee during our inquiry into organised crime. Witnesses made clear repeatedly, in private when they chose to give evidence in privateI do not criticise them for doing that, because in view of the circumstances in which they lived they were perfectly entitled to do sotheir feelings about the witness protection scheme. It would require them to uproot themselves from their families and their churches, to uproot their children from their schools, and to live in England, Wales or Scotland. That is not something that many families wish to do, even when intimidated. Apart from the expense, it is too big and traumatic an upheaval.
	Given that we still have 60 Diplock court trials per week, it is worrying that the Government have moved so quicklyfar too quicklyto end them. The Bill, of course, puts something in their place. I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read it, because it is a most curious piece of legislation. On the one hand, the Secretary of State has taken an awful lot of time to persuade the Ulster Unionistsmy colleagues back home, but sadly not in the Chamber

Lady Hermon: I am very grateful. On too many occasions in the Chamber I have been heckled with sedentary interventions, and I am delighted that a member of the Democratic Unionist party has risen to make a proper intervention.
	As I was saying, I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the Bill. The position is very curious. On the one hand, the Government are endeavouring to persuade the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party that things will be so good by 2008 that policing and justice can be devolved. That is the timescale set out in the St Andrews agreement. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds)he is not present, but I am sure that someone will bring this to his attentionhas said that he does not expect policing and justice to be devolved in his lifetime. Nevertheless, the Government, and the Secretary of State this afternoon, have repeated the deadline, so the Secretary of State must be confident that the Unionist community will itself be confident that republican criminality is over and republican intimidation is overthat there will be no more such activity on the part of mainstream republicans. In other words, we will have no more Northern banks, no more murders like the grisly, awful murder of Robert McCartney. The Government must be assured of that in order to aim for a deadline of 2008 for the devolution of policing and justice. On the other hand, the Government are at the same time looking in the opposite direction. They have got rid of Diplock courts, but they have replaced them with a great and significant extension of non-jury trials.
	Let us look at what we are being asked to agree to. I should preface my remarks by saying that no criticism whatsoever is intended of the present incumbent of the post of Director of Pubic Prosecutions. If I want to have a row with Alastair Frasier, I shall do so in private. What I have to say is not at all a reflection on the current DPP; instead I am taking a long-term view of what we are being asked to approve.
	As Members have mentioned, clause 1 states that:
	The Director of Public Prosecutions...may issue a certificate...if
	(a) he suspects that any of the following conditions is met, and
	(b) he is satisfied that...there is a risk
	to the administration of justice. So the DPP does not have to have reasonable grounds or even a reasonable suspicion; he just has to suspect that one of four conditions is met and that that will lead to an erosion of the administration of justice.
	The measure makes no mention of national security. I know that the Minister has valiantly tried to defend the Secretary of State, who I think let slip the term national security, but that is not mentioned. The first condition that is included is that a person is, or has been,
	a member of a proscribed organisation,
	or that they are an associate of a member of such an organisation. The second conditionwe must remember that just one of these conditions needs to be met and that they do not all have to be met at the same timeis that
	the offence or any of the offences was committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation.
	The third condition is
	that an attempt has been made to prejudice the investigation or prosecution of the offence
	by someone in a proscribed organisation; I am curious about that condition. The fourth condition is that
	the offence or any of the offences was committed... as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility of one person or group of persons.
	I wish the Minister to address condition 3. I am particularly interested in the fact that under clause 8 the conditions will apply to events that occurred before the Bill reaches the statute book. Does condition 3where someone connected with a proscribed organisation has attempted to prejudice an investigationopen the way, rightly in my view, for the prosecution by a non-jury trial of those responsible for the murder of Robert McCartney? In that case there was a deliberate and wilful attempt to clear all forensic evidence from the scene of the crime. As the Bill is retrospectiveI refer Members to clause 8(3)and will apply to offences committed before the Bill is enacted, I would like the Minister to confirm for the record that it gives the DPP the complete discretion to put a case before a non-jury trial if he suspects that there has been an attempt to prejudice the investigation or the prosecution of an offence. I would be fascinated to have that confirmed. That is certainly my interpretation of the proposed legislation, and I will raise no criticism if it is correct.
	However, let me move on to the Diplock courts. In an earlier intervention on the subject I confused the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), although I had better put it on the record that it is very difficult to confuse him. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and his party colleagues who are not present, made the most dreadful criticism of the Diplock courts. That is appalling, and I wish that they would check the facts.
	The facts are that, unlike with other courts in Northern Ireland, the judge in the Diplock courts, who sat alone, had to give stated reasons for his conclusion if it led to a conviction, and he often gave stated reasons if he decided to acquit. Of course, technically, he is right, because there are no female High Court judgesor, indeed, a female Lord Chief Justice; that argument I will have with the Minister on another occasion.
	The judge in the Diplock courts had to give stated reasons for the conclusions that he came to in every case, and there were unfettered rights of appeal, in that a point of law and a point of fact could be appealed. Therefore, Diplock courts were hugely successful, and if the hon. Member for Foyle and his colleagues care to look at the number of appeals that went to the criminal appeals commission, they will see that they were very few, because the judge was meticulously fair in getting matters correct.

Sammy Wilson: Perhaps I have misunderstood and I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that clause 7 refers simply to people's ability to appeal against their case being referred to a non-jury court. Given that, as the hon. Lady has rightly said, the standard of justice in such a court has been high, surely there is no disadvantage in people going to such a court, or to a jury court. What, therefore, is the big issue in this regard?

Sammy Wilson: Would not a real danger arise if the Government were to go down the route that the hon. Lady suggests? For example, if the DPP decides that an offence was committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation and is thus suitable for judicial review, the defence team could ask how he came by that knowledge. That could result in an informant being revealed, which means that matters of national security would be involved. The Superintendents Association of Northern Ireland made that exact pointthat an intelligence source could be prejudiced if there were the option for judicial review.

Lady Hermon: Please, nodefinitely not! I will never say East Belfast again! I am quite content that the hon. Gentleman is stuck in East Antrim. It is not far enough away, as far as I am concerned.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim must reflect on why I think that there is an inherent contradiction in the Bill. At the beginning of my remarks, I said that the Secretary of State had spent an enormous amount of energy and time persuading the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and their colleagues that all would be well, and that the Unionist community could have every confidence that policing and justice would be devolved in 2008. With this Bill, however, the Government are clearly anticipating that the circumstances then will be such that there will have to be an extension of non-jury trials.
	The point that I want to make to the hon. Member for East Antrim and the Superintendents Association has to do with the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), part 7 of that Act extends to Northern Ireland and allows the prosecution to apply to a Crown Court judge for a trial to be held without a jury if there is a real and present danger of jury tampering.
	The 2003 Act defined jury tampering in section 44(6)(c), which states that it would be a danger in cases
	where there has been intimidation, or attempted intimidation, of any person who is likely to be a witness in the trial.
	That definition has been available since 2003, when the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives voted against it. The Northern Ireland Select Committee has taken evidence about jury intimidation, so it is extraordinary that the DPP in Northern Ireland has never activated the provision in the 2003 Act that I have just mentioned.
	I know that the Minister cannot account for the DPP's decisions, as the prosecution is independent. I respect that independence, but the Minister can do the House a courtesy when he winds up the debate by explaining why the 2003 provision has never been usedgiven that paramilitary intimidation was reported by the Independent Monitoring Commission and by the Northern Ireland Select Committee's investigation into organised crime. Why in heaven's name has the DPP never sought to use the powers that have been available since 2003? I am really very concerned about that.
	The Bill considerably extends the DPP's powers. Unlike the 2003 Act, it does not extend the power of judges. Will the DPP ever exercise the new powers, given that the powers contained in the 2003 Act have never been used?

Lady Hermon: The Minister nods, but I can tell him for free that that is absolutely shameful. In the face of repeated intimidationthe evidence published by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the degree of intimidation by loyalist as well as republican paramilitaries, whether dissident or not, to which the IMC has testified in report after reportit is shameful that the provision is not in force after three years.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister, but is he saying that the office of the DPP did not have enough capacity to activate the powers at a time when it was being expanded significantly? No longer is the Public Prosecution Service confined to Belfast, the capital city of Northern Ireland; it has regional offices west and south of the Bann and, I think, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for North Antrimthat was certainly the intention. There has been a huge increase in the number of staff employed by the DPP, yet the Minister is still trying to convince me that we did not have adequate resources. I am sorry but I am not buying into that argument.
	Will the Minister consider another serious issue? The delays that still pertain in the prosecution service in Northern Ireland are a huge embarrassment and an absolute disgrace. When justice is delayed, justice is denied. We can all nod in agreement about that, but it is not words but actions that count. There are huge delays in the prosecution service despite the additional resources in terms of finance and staff. In the winding up, perhaps the Minister will have another think about the excuse that can be offered to the House and, more important, to the people of Northern Ireland. They deserve better than that. They deserve to be free from paramilitary intimidation, so I should prefer the Minister to give a better reply in his winding-up speech.
	There is a contradiction in trying to persuade Unionists that all will be rosy in the garden by 2008.

Lady Hermon: The alternative Unionists. I hope that they also respect fundamental human rights. It is a curiosity to me that the Bill purports to extend the powers of the NIHRC. I have already mentioned the Secretary of State's warm and glowing praise for the major role of the current commission. The Government have given the impression through the Secretary of State that they pay great attention to respect for human rights. That being the case, may I draw attention to the fact that it takes five pages in the explanatory notes alone to explain it? There is a heading of European Convention on Human Rights on page 25, and the section continues on pages 26, 27, 28 and 29 through to page 30. I have never seen the like before on any explanatory notes, where it takes five pages to justify how the Bill has sailed so close to the wind in terms of compatibility with the European convention on human rights.
	On the one hand, the Bill seems to say that it is right to increase the powers of the NIHRC because the Government believe that it is a really important thing to do. On the other hand, the Government have had to justify how what most of the Bill does is compatiblein respect of arrest, detention and the very serious ouster provision in clause 7with the European convention. I do not think that I have ever seen an ouster clause that makes it so explicit on the face of a Bill that the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply. I am talking about clause 7; I have not made it up; I am reading it.
	As I said, when I read the Bill, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Clause 7(3) says:
	Section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act of 1998... is subject to subsections (1) and (2).
	In other words, the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions is beyond challenge: unless there is dishonesty or bad faith, it cannot be challenged at all. We have thus made part of our Human Rights ActI paid tribute to the Labour Government for introducing it into the United Kingdom and extending it to Northern Irelandsubservient to a discretion exercised by the DPP. That is an extraordinary change for the Government now to introduce. In the Minister's winding-up speech, will he comment on whether the Lord Chancellor or, indeed, the Attorney-General were consulted on that change? What were their views on clause 7, particularly subsection (3)?
	Finally, on the increased powers given to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, many Members representing English, Scottish and Welsh constituencies will, like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), be rather bemused and perhaps concerned when they read the Bill. Most right hon. and hon. Members will be hard pushed to name any individual member of that commission, but, courtesy of the Bill going through this eveningI take it that no one is going to vote against it, but I hope that we can get it changed and improved in Committeethe NIHRC will be able to call for documents and take oral evidence from people within constituencies outside Northern Ireland. If that is the case, perhaps the Government could pay some attention to it before Committee stage, as the Bill provides a clear vehicle for it.
	The Bill makes provision for increased powers for the chief inspector of criminal justiceKit Chivers, who does a tremendously good job. He is one of my constituents, but apart from that, his office of the criminal justice inspectorate does an enormously good job. The Bill will extend his remit to the Northern Ireland Court Service.
	The Minister and his colleagues might well bear something in mind if people are to have confidence in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. One section of the communitythe nationalist and republican section, I am sorry to sayhas confidence in the commission, but the Minister will be well aware from the comments that have been made by the DUP Members who have spoken at length this evening that that confidence is not shared across the Unionist community. The Minister may well like to take on board the suggestion that, if the commission's increased powers involve any matter of import in the criminal justice system in determining whether there are abuses of human rights, the chief inspector of criminal justice's jurisdiction should also be extended to cover the commission.
	Before the Minister tells me that the commission is an independent statutory body, I will remind him that the police ombudsman's office is also an independent statutory body, but it comes within the remit of the chief inspector of criminal justice. Therefore, to be consistent and logicalI know that that is difficult for the Northern Ireland Office, but I wish that it was logicalthe inspection format of the chief inspector should be extended to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. With that, I will wish everyone a happy Christmas.

David Simpson: I thought that my hon. Friend was referring to the Security Minister, but perhaps he might yet put a bit of spin on things.

David Simpson: Yes, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) suggests that we might get a bit of spin later.
	I will put my comments in the form of some questions, and perhaps we will get some clarity on a number of them. Clause 1(6) and (7) relate to the issuing of certificates stating that a trial is to be conducted without a jury. Subsections (6) refers to offences
	committed to any extent...as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility.
	I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members can remember the case of the late Mr. Harry Hammond, who was arrested and fined for public order offences in 2002, after holding up signs in Bournemouth that said, Stop immorality and so on. Despite the fact that it was he who was attacked, it turned out that it was he who was prosecuted. If a Christian were to do something similar in Northern Ireland, consistency in law would demand that they too be prosecuted. Therefore, will the Minister confirm that, under the Bill, any Christian doing what the late Mr. Hammond did would be prosecuted under a certificate issued by the DPP, with the result that they would be prosecuted in the same manner as if they were a terrorist?
	In the same subsections, the Bill states that not only would this kind of non-jury prosecution occur for those who incited a crime or who were proactive in committing a crime, but that a non-jury trial certificate would also be issued for those who breached the law in responding to or reacting to an attack. Will the Minister confirm what would happen if a resident in south Armagh, for example, were to find his or her home under attackI can assure him that that still happens from time to time in that areaand were to defend him or herself and his or her family, and property, from the thugs who sought to do them harm on the grounds of their religion? Will the Minister confirm that, if the person under attack were to breach the law, he would be tried under the same measures as if he were the paramilitary organisation that sought his hurt and that he would be treated in law like the very terrorist who sought to terrorise him and his family?
	Clause 5(4) states:
	No inference may be drawn by the court from the fact that the certificate has been issued in relation to the trial.
	Will the Minister outline exactly how he intends to ensure that that will be the case in practice? What criteria will he put in place to assess that that has been the case? How does he propose to review decisions and judgments passed down by the courts to ensure that no inference has been drawn? Who will be responsible for reviewing the court proceedings to ascertain whether any inference was drawn in contravention of the wording of the Bill and what powers will that person have?
	Clause 28 deals with taking possession of land. It states:
	If the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order, he may authorise a person
	(a) to take possession of land or other property
	or cause it to be removed. Would the Minister consider the gentleman called Mr. Slab Murphy's continuing criminal empire in south Armagh to be a threat to the peace of south Armagh? Will he give tonight a categorical and unequivocal pledge that, if the Bill becomes law, he will, within a stated time frame, order the seizure of Mr. Murphy's land and the destruction of whatever buildings are necessary, including the farm house and barns? After all, those powers are afforded to the Secretary of State in the Bill and if he is not prepared to use them against one of the most notorious and ruthless criminal gang leaders and terrorist godfathers in Northern Ireland, what is the point in his having those powers in the first place?
	Finally, paragraph 4(1) and (2) of schedule 3I can see the Minister writing anxiously; I hope that he is getting all the detailsdeals with the powers to stop and search people. That was referred to earlier in relation to the Army and the police. Will those measures apply to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly when they are at Stormont? Given the events of the past, when major spy rings were in operation, and given that it seems that senior members of Sinn Fein/IRA are still working for British intelligence, surely the provisions would be important.
	I said at the beginning of my speech that I would be brief. I hope that the Minister has written all my questions down, and I look forward to some straightforward answers.6.15 pm

Laurence Robertson: Yet again, we have had an interesting debate on yet another Northern Ireland Bill. It makes a change to be debating a Northern Ireland measure on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee. Long may that continue, at least until the Assembly is up and running, as we hope that it will be very soon. I will return to that prospect in a few moments.
	Let me run through some of the comments made by hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) again spoke in a Northern Ireland debate and gave us the benefit of his experience of being Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has also been representing the Liberal Democrats on the Welsh Grand Committee today, so he has done well to be in two places at once. He made detailed comments about the problems that the DPP might face when deciding whether to issue a certificate for certain offences because of the vague guidelines. He also objected, as we do, to the absence of any appeal mechanism. I am sure that we will return to the good points that he made in Committee.
	I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for three quarters of an hour in a meeting yesterday. He spoke for a similar length of time today, but he is always well worth listening to. He made an interesting comment about how although, in one sense, this is the end of the Diplock courts, the Bill puts the system on the books without an end to it. He also spoke interestingly about national security considerations. With respect to the Minister, I do not think that he gave the hon. Member for Foyle an adequate response, although I am sure that he will be able to clarify his position further. While it is important that we support the security services, which have a tremendously difficult job to do, I sometimes worry that when we leave things open and vague, almost anything can be excused as a matter of national security. We saw that happening when the Government attempted to introduce 90-day detentions. I would also like a little more clarification on the matterif not today, perhaps in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, made several good points. He asked why the Bill could not have waited until next year so that we could have found out what had happened in Northern Ireland. That view was echoed by several hon. Members, especially those from the Democratic Unionist party. I give my hon. Friend a promise that we will test that matter again in Committee.
	Owing to the slightly early start of the wind-ups, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) has not yet managed to return to the Chamber. Although he mentioned the fact that we have moved on considerably, he rightly referred to the difficulties that still exist in Northern Ireland.
	The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) paid a warm tribute to the Diplock judges and the work that they have carried out in difficult circumstances. I think that the whole House would endorse what he said in that respect. He said that he regretted the need to continue to hold some trials without juries, but he stressed that there is a need to do so at the moment. In both an intervention and his speech, he questioned the role of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the human rights commissioner. He cited a detailed objection to the particular person in that position, but his more general point was to ask whether there is actually a need for the commission and what work it carries out. Again, I will return to that very matter and the extension of the powers of the commissioner in Committee.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was a little bit more supportive of the human rights commissioner, whereas the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke of the need, as he saw it, for the Army powers and Diplock courts, but not for the NIHRC. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) spoke in detail about his concerns on trials conducted without a jury. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) spoke in support of the search powers, and he drew attention to concerns about the situation in south Armagh, which I visited not that long ago. I think that he is right that people are concerned about security in that area, and we have to be conscious of that.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) gave quite a long speech. I look forward to sitting in Committee with her, but I hope that her speeches will be slightly shorter than the one that she gave today, although she raised some good points. She expressed great concern about giving so much discretion to the DPP. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) raised a number of concerns, particularly about the circumstances in which someone could be arrested in Northern Ireland.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said at the outset of the debate, we are, in principle, in broad support of the Bill. We have a number of concerns, which I shall raise in Committee, and the main one is about the DPP's role as regards trials. It is an unsatisfactory situation, but for reasons of which we are all aware, there is trial without jury in Northern Ireland. I question whether it is right for the person responsible for bringing prosecutions to decide the mode of trial. I am not convinced that that is the right way forward but, again, we can consider that in Committee. It causes me concern that we should still be in the same situation. I would be the first to accept that things have moved on, but in talking about trial without jury, we must acknowledge that there is still a serious problem in Northern Ireland. One of the problems is one of the main political parties' lack of support for not only the police but the whole justice system. The fact that we are considering the Bill, and the fact that there continues to be trial without jury, underlines the problem of that party not signing up fully to law and order.
	I was in the Province yesterday and the day before that, and I had a number of discussions with people, including members of Sinn Fein. They made the point that they did not feel that they could get their people fully to support the police unless they were given a date for the devolution of policing and justice. All hon. Members know that, under current legislation, that cannot happen, because the Assembly would have to endorse that, and until Sinn Fein give support to the police, a number of political parties, particularly the DUP, will not be happy to sit down in government with Sinn Fein. That is a vicious circleone party will not sit down with Sinn Fein until it endorses policing, but Sinn Fein will not endorse policing until it has a date on which policing is to be devolved. However, that cannot be until the Assembly sits. As I said to the Minister yesterday, we need the Government to break that circle. They should suggest to Sinn Fein that it ought to support the police and the criminal justice system without any hesitation, regardless of any other circumstances.

Paul Goggins: This has been a very good debate which, for the most part, reflects more optimistic times in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, terrorist atrocities will be regarded more and more as a thing of the past. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) mentioned the Select Committee visit to Northern Ireland last week, and depicted the scene outside Belfast City hall, where he attended a Christmas fair. He compared it with past scenes, and hon. Members whose constituencies are not in Northern Ireland will recognise the difference that he highlighted. Today, the fact that Gerry Adams and some of his colleagues met the Chief Constable is very welcome. Some would say, Not before time, but others would accept that, until recently, such a meeting would have been almost unthinkable.
	We must move on, and make sure that, given the increasing confidence, all political parties in Northern Ireland give their unequivocal support to the police and the rule of law. That is the very basis of democracy, and nothing less will do. I can tell the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) that there is no equivocation whatsoever from the Government on thatit is a very clear message. I began by speaking about optimism, but it is the responsibility of Government to deal with the reality of the threats and difficulties that remain, and to make sure, as far as possible, that the people of Northern Ireland are safe, secure and properly protected. I join the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), who commented not just on terrorism and the threat from paramilitary forces but on the everyday criminality that has wrecked the lives of elderly people in his constituency and other parts of Northern Ireland. That criminal behaviour is beyond contempt, and I join him in condemning it. I apologise for being mirthful when he accused some hon. Members of over-egging their argument. I thought that he was referring to his hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). From the look on his face, I think the hon. Member for East Antrim thought that he was talking about him.
	The hon. Members for South Antrim and for East Antrim and the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) claimed that we were moving too fast with the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and his colleagues said that we were going too slowly and that we ought to move more quickly in certain respects. The Government must strike the right balance between these different pressures so that we move forward in a way that offers proper protection to the people of Northern Ireland.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made it clear that although the Provisional IRA no longer pose a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, others do. Dissident republicans still pose a threat. That is clear from the IMC report that others have mentioned throughout the afternoon. Loyalist paramilitary forces also still pose a threat, which we must take seriously. However, it would be irresponsible if the Government had nothing more to offer than a renewal of part VII powers for another 12 months, in the expectation that the world would then be wonderful and we need provide nothing else. In the Bill we seek to ensure a proportionate and effective response to the existing danger, which may be there for some time to come.
	Let me deal with some of the issues that were raised. I join the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for North Antrim in their comments about the judges and others who have run the Diplock system over many years. Yes, they have faced threats. Yes, they have faced many risks, and it is right that we place on record the appreciation of all of us for what they have done. The hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman are rightthe quality of justice delivered by the Diplock courts by and large has been of a very high order. That point needs to be made.
	In the Bill we seek to replace the Diplock court system and the present presumption for judge-alone trials for certain types of offence with a presumption for trial by jury, albeit, as hon. Members noted in the debate, with the provision for judge-alone trials following a statutory test that reflects both the circumstances of the offence and the risk to justice. It is worth spending a little time considering that two-part test.
	In the first part, one or more of four conditions must be met: the defendant is connected with a proscribed organisation, the offence is committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation, a proscribed organisation has attempted to prejudice the investigation or the prosecution of a particular offence, or the case involves religious or political hostility. One or more of those conditions must be met, and the Director of Public Prosecutions must be satisfied that there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired. Both parts of that test must be satisfied before the DPP can make a decision and issue a certificate.
	The hon. Member for North Down asked me about a particular case and whether the provisions of the Bill would allow a certificate to be made in that case. She will appreciate, of course, that I cannot make a decision on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would be for him to decide. But if the Robert McCartney case was prosecutedcame into the court systemit would be open to the DPP to make a certificate if he judged that those conditions applied in that case.
	The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) posed a number of questions and noticed that I was writinghe said writing anxiously, but writing furiously would probably be a more accurate description. He asked for no spin and I shall try to deal with his questions without giving him any spin. On the example of the placard which relayed a religious sentiment, I do not see how that would be covered by the test that I outlined. I do not see how justice would be impaired by the prosecution of that individual, so if he asks for my judgment, I do not think that in that case the test would be used.
	The hon. Gentleman took me back to a previous piece of legislation with which I was involved, when he raised the issue of the householder being in a position to defend himself. Of course, any householder can make a proportionate response to the risk as he perceives it at the time. If somebody is posing a serious and significant risk in their home, they can take proportionate action in the face of that. I do not see how the criteria set out in the statutory test has any bearing on that.
	The hon. Gentleman then asked a series of about eight questions which even my furious handwriting did not keep up with, so I will look carefully at them. I would just say, though, that the judiciary is of course impartial and will make decisions based on the facts, but that is to do with the process of the trial itself rather than the decision about whether a licence is issued.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned a specific individual in relation to the rule of law. Let me say this to him and to the whole House. Any person in Northern Ireland who is involved in organised crime or in paramilitary activity should know that every law enforcement agency is after them and on their case, whether it be the Assets Recovery Agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Nobody can feel that they can escape the rule of law. I cannot comment on an individual case, but I can give the hon. Gentleman that guarantee. From my role in the organised crime taskforce, I know that there is a tremendous appetite in the law enforcement agencies of Northern Ireland to get on with delivering that.
	On the test, we must strike the right balance, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) emphasised. We must balance the need for justice against the need to protect the human rights of individual citizens. If we set the test too high, the interests of justice will not be served; if we set it too low, many people may be caught whom we do not wish to be caught. As a result, we could see a deteriorating position instead of an improving one. It is essential to set the test at the right level.
	Let me say to the hon. Member for North Down that we are not approaching this in a naive way. We do not expect that all criminality and paramilitary activity will suddenly come to an end one day when the Bill is enacted, but we must switch gear at some point to change the presumption from a presumption for a jury-less trial to a presumption for a trial by jury. We will need to see this as a transitional period. Our aspiration is that in time the number of cases tried by judge alone will continue to decrease.
	The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the Bill needs to fit with other pieces of legislation. We discussed the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which fits neatly with the Bill. Let me cite the example of an individual whom the DPP considers for a certificate based on the test and then decides not to issue one. The case goes to a trial by jury, but then, in the course of that trial, there is evidence of a real and present danger of jury tampering and intimidation. From Januaryalbeit that she may feel that that is a little lateit will be possible to change the mode of trial to judge alone. Taken together, the two provisions will be very helpful
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) offered us the prospect of many interesting hours of deliberation in Committee, as did hon. Members on both sides of the House. He invited us to discuss who our friends are and how we define them, and to consider clause 7, which has excited many hon. Members. All those matters will be put under scrutiny. We will consider them carefully and advance detailed arguments as to why we think that this is the right approach. At this stage, let me say that the DPP, as a very experienced prosecutor who is used to making decisions about mode of trial, is able to consider intelligence and other information that may be appropriate in judging whether justice was likely to be undermined in a particular case.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) argued strongly that the Attorney-General should be the person who made that decision. We considered that carefully, but ultimately felt that a Northern Ireland-based person would ensure that justice is brought closer to home, which we all want to see in due course. That was our rationale for making that choice.
	Various discussions have taken place about whether the process should be judicial, and whether it is right for the DPP to have such a role. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked whether having three judges was a possibility. We fear that that would slow down the process of justice, which, as Members have commented, is already too slow. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked whether SIAC could be used in relation to such cases. The problem with SIAC is the use of special advocates. Once a special advocate has seen the intelligence, he can no longer act for the individual whom he has been representing. Indeed, the more people who see the intelligence and information, the greater the risk of some of that spilling out. We have considered those matters carefully in coming to our conclusion. We will no doubt have a further opportunity to debate such issues in Committee.
	In addition to reiterating the tribute to those who have run the Diplock system over many years, we should remember two things. First, we should point to the reduction in the number of cases dealt with under the Diplock system since the 1980s: from 354 cases in 1987 to 49 in 2005. We would all welcome that, as it represents fewer trials by judge alone, and it must reflect improving circumstances: the hon. Member for North Down is right that over recent years the average number of cases per year has been 60, but in the most recent year the number was 49. Secondly, we regard that as a positive step. It is not an overnight complete change with no more criminality and no more cases to which the system might apply. However, it changes the presumption away from judge alone to trial by jury, and that is welcome.
	It was pleasing to see the general welcome in the Chamber for the measures on jury reform. Those will be effective in reducing intimidation and promoting confidence, both in the criminal justice system more widely and in juries and individual jurors. The provisions will grant greater anonymity to jurors and restrict access to personal details, which is welcome. In addition, stronger checks will be introduced with regard to criminal records and, in serious cases, other information that might be pertinent. Having that greater confidence will enable us to remove peremptory challenge, which was removed in England and Wales some time ago. That has been recommended by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and we concur that the time is right, albeit with other provisions in place, to give greater confidence to the jury.
	Quite a lot of lively discussion was engendered on the Human Rights Commission. I pay tribute again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, as we are finally delivering on the commitment that he made as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, providing access to places of detention and a power to compel evidence. Of course, that does not give a new mandate to the Human Rights Commission, but it does provide greater powers that allow it to exercise its function more effectively.
	Considerable consultation has taken place; we have not just produced the proposal out of thin air. Hon. Members and others have been able to contribute to that consultation, and we are moving the provisions into line with those in Great Britain, which now has the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. Many of the provisions in the Bill are similar to those in the Equality Act 2006, which provided for that new commission. No replacement or duplication will be made of other bodies or organisations. All oversight bodies have an important responsibility, when they set out on an inquiry or investigation, to consider the remit of other bodies and to ensure no unnecessary duplication of role. If a serious and pressing investigation is to be carried out, other agencies will take precedence. Cases of serious allegations of brutality or even worse are matters for the police. It is not for the commission to get in ahead of them in such circumstances. The police would take precedence. If there is, regrettably, a death in prison custody, it would be for the prisons ombudsman to deal with that first, in line with his obligations.
	However, it is right to have some restrictions. It is fair that the commission gives 14 days' notice of its intention to enter places of detention. It is also right to ensure that evidence cannot be compelled if it compromises national security. That is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. The same provision is in the Equality Act 2006 and applies throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned the start date for the commission's new powers. As they said, that will be 1 January 2008. There is an argument about whether the powers should be retrospective or forward looking. In my relatively new role in the Northern Ireland Office, I have been struck by just how much of the oversight arrangements are focused on the past. It is important that the commission has powers that focus on the future, so that it takes us forward, deals with the issues as of today and tomorrow, and ensures that we have the right conditions in our society. The measures are entirely defendable and should come into effect after 1 January 2008.

Paul Goggins: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that a range of other oversight bodies can obtain that information if inquiries lead in that direction. In this case, it is important that the commission faces forward. Perhaps hon. Members should evaluate its contribution in a different way. It dealt with 920 cases last year. It is a busy organisation. It is doing a good job and should be supported in its work to ensure that people's human rights are adhered to.
	Major changes are taking place to Army and police powers in Northern Ireland. We are repealing part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 from next July. As was made clear, many of the provisions of part VII have been removed. Only those that are essential for security in Northern Ireland are included in the Bill.
	Alongside the changes in legislation, the changes to the presence of the Army are profound. As of the summer of next year, the Army will no longer be deployed in Northern Ireland. There will be a garrison force, but it will be there just as other troops are based in north Yorkshire or any other part of the United Kingdom. That will be its home and it will be out on operations throughout the world along with the rest of its colleagues in the British Army.
	These are big changes. Again, we have to see the optimistic side of that, but we must also have regard to the risks that remain. The minimal powers in the Bill enable us to do that. In particular, they allow us to deal with public disorder. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the problems of Whiterock. In a sense, that is our benchmark for the measures that we are introducing to deal with that level of paramilitary-inspired disorder. The police and the Army must be able to deal with that. The Army clearly has special expertise when it comes to explosives, and we need provisions for that purpose as well.
	The Army needs to be there to support the police, as it would in the event of serious disorder anywhere in Great Britain. In particular, it is needed to manage parades. I gave the example of Whiterock. We have had an extremely good year, the most peaceful that many can remember, but none of us should think that one year means there will never be a challenge in the future. We must be prepared to ensure that we can always maintain order and make certain that people are secure in their own communities. It is also important for the Army and police to have powers to search for weapons, deal with bomb threats and cordon off roads if such action is necessary. These are not powers that we hope to see used more and more, but they are powers that will be required for the foreseeable future.
	It should be emphasised that the Army has no direct national security role. It is there to give important back-up to the police and the civil authorities, which is why it needs these powers.
	Let me reassure the right hon. Member for Torfaen about another issue that he raised. He asked how we would review the powers for the Army and the police, which was a fair question. As he will have noted, there is provision for a review and a report to the Secretary of State so that we can look carefully at how the legislation is working. That will help the Secretary of State to decide whether to remove powers if they are no longer needed, which clause 40 allows him to do. The review will also deal with any military complaints. I think that there were only six last year, but it is important for someone to be able to deal with such complaints if necessary, and the same person will perform both those functions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle took us down the route of national securityas I thought he might, although very little in the Bill pertains to it. I do not want to dwell on the subject for too long, but it would be wrong if I did not respond to some of what my hon. Friend said.
	There is no massive new role for MI5 in Northern Ireland. If those were not the words my hon. Friend used, that was certainly the impression conveyed in his speech. Accountability is changing, however. I know that my hon. Friend disagrees with the way in which it is changing, but we think it is changing in the right way, to ensure that national security in Northern Ireland is on the same footing as national security in every other part of the United Kingdom.
	Let me make three points. First, all police officers, wherever they are based and whether they are working on the streets of Belfast or any other part of Northern Ireland, or working with the Security Service in Northern Irelandhave all the accountability that any police officer has. They are of course accountable to the Chief Constable, and also to the police ombudsman. Nothing, but nothing, will change that. It is important for the people of Northern Ireland to understand that the provisions we have set down for transparency and accountability are not diminished one bit by the changes in primacy.
	Secondly, the Chief Constable and the ombudsman are in the process of agreeing protocols with the Security Service so that all those organisations know precisely where they stand when it comes to dealing with any investigations or information. That, too, should offer reassurance. It is not true to say that the Security Service has no routes to accountability: the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee are just two of the bodies that can provide accountability.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle may want to intervene again briefly in a second. First, let me say that there will be no force within a force. Anyone who claims otherwise is not really taking cognisance of the measures that we have provided to ensure proper accountability. Equally, there can be no open access to security intelligence for anyone who fancies taking a look. We must protect the people of Northern Ireland and make certain that they are secure, and some of the information involved needs to remain secret, albeit with the accountability that I have mentioned.

Mark Durkan: The Minister must recognise that the ombudsman is currently able to investigate issues that touch on national security because the Police Service of Northern Ireland is in the lead on that at present. That will not be the case after the Government get their way in respect of the changes. In relation to the investigatory powers tribunal which the Minister mentioned, how many complaints have there been to it since the tribunal was set up, and how many of them have been upheld?

Paul Goggins: I will be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about his more detailed second question. On his first question, all the accountabilities that exist in respect of the police in Northern Ireland remain regardless of whether the police officer is working with the security service. If they are working with the security services, that fact changes nothing in terms of accountability.
	I wish to say a few things about the measures in the Bill for the greater regulation of the private security industry. That has been recommended by the Independent Monitoring Commission and it is an important part of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on organised crime. It is also clear to me from my meetings and discussions with members of the private security industry in Northern Ireland that they would also welcome that. We must tackle head-on matters such as organised crime and extortion because otherwise they will have a tendency to undermine communities in Northern Ireland and we cannot allow that to happen, not least because of the connections with paramilitary activity.
	In essence, what the Bill provides is a switch from the present arrangements whereby individual companies are offered a licence by the Secretary of State unless he has evidence to suggest that they are involved in paramilitary activity to one in which individual workers will have to have their own licence. Such licences will be given only where people have undergone appropriate levels of training and criminal record checks have been done on them.
	We cannot move immediately to that system of individual licensing, which is why we have some intermediate arrangements. We intend to extend the current arrangements so that the Secretary of State will still give licences to individual companies, but we are widening the criteria so that he can deny them a licence or place conditions on them not only if he suspects that they are involved in paramilitary activity, but if he believes that they are involved in any form of criminality.
	In due course, we will move to a situation where the Security Industry Authority, which already operates in England and Wales, will operate from next door in Scotland, too, and we hope that soon after it will operate in Northern Ireland. We want to move to an arrangement in which it oversees the regulation and licensing of the private security industry there. That will be very welcome. It will add enormously to security, and it will produce more opportunities for the private security industry in Northern Ireland which will be welcome, too. Most importantly, it will help us to drive out criminality from within the communities of Northern Ireland.
	This has been an important debate. Policing and justice is, and will remain, the key issue in Northern Ireland. All parties must support policing and the rule of law and every citizen should play their part by reporting crime to the police. But the police and the justice system still need to function in face of the threats that remain. The powers that we are giving in this Bill will enable the forces of law and order to do that. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question put,
	 The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 13.

Jamie Reed: I present a petition of more than 10,000 signatures from the people of Copeland and west Cumbria concerning the provision of consultant-led maternity services at West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven.
	At the weekend, I was privileged to march through the streets of the town alongside 4,000 men, women and children in a demonstration supporting the retention of services at the hospital as part of the Save our Services campaign organised by  The Whitehaven News. The campaign is to save all our services, but maternity services are particularly important given the number of other services that their presence underpins. The House may expect further petitions in due course.
	Local health authorities have recently undertaken a review of maternity services in north Cumbria, which led to fear, anger and anxiety throughout the area at the prospect of all services being centralised in Carlisle. Most important, however, that fear is due to the fact that West Cumberland hospital is more than 42 miles from Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle and is badly served by poor roads and public transport provision, so much so that much of Copeland is even further away. Millom is 70 miles away, Egremont and Seascale are 50 miles away and Ravenglass and Eskdale are nearly 60 miles away.
	We are a special case. What works in Kensington does not work in west Cumbria. One size does not fit all. As the borough that holds the world's largest concentration of radioactive material on a single site, we clearly deserve special attention.
	The choice of women in west Cumbria is to give birth in a fully operating consultant, obstetrician and gynaecologist-led maternity unit at West Cumberland hospital. It is my belief and that of my constituents that that is non-negotiable.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the residents of the Borough of Copeland and others throughout West Cumbria,
	Declares their strong opposition to the threatened changes to maternity services in West Cumbria which would lead to the majority of women having to travel to Carlisle for maternity care.
	The Petitioners further declare that the provision of consultant led obstetric and gynaecological services at the West Cumberland Hospital in Whitehaven is an absolute necessity for both the current West Cumberland Hospital and its suggested replacement; that there is no clinical evidence to support a move away from a consultant led maternity unit to a midwife led maternity unit; and that the policy of Government is to provide women with birth choices.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons now urge the Northwest Strategic Health Authority, the Cumbria Primary Care Trust, the North Cumbria Acute Hospitals Trust and the Department of Health to ensure that the forthcoming public consultation on maternity services provision in West Cumbria includes the retention and improvement of those maternity services currently provided at the West Cumberland hospital and its suggested replacement.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Anne Snelgrove: The reality of 150,000 familiessavers with the Christmas savings company, Farepak, based in my constituency, which collapsed in Octobercoping with Christmas on around a sixth of their planned budget is just a week away.
	In my first Adjournment debate on 7 November, I set out three complementary principles for the future of Farepak savers: to work for immediate relief for the savers; to secure an explanation and justice for the savers; and to get better regulation of the voucher industry. I am very grateful for being granted this debate, as it is time to look back at what has been promised, what has been delivered and what we can do to ensure that it never happens again.
	The Minister took action and we now have a 6.8 million fund paying out to savers, hampers being delivered and an investigation into the disaster under way. May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and his private office for setting up the response fund, for their tireless work in promoting the fund and for their leverage in persuading companies to contribute? I am proud of what has been achieved nationally, but also locally in my constituency.
	The way the community in Swindon has come together to support Farepak victims has been a beacon to others. Through an initiative that came out of my meeting with Farepak agents on 17 October, customers were offered emergency loans by Swindon's credit unions in time for Christmas.

Michael Wills: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I would like to express the thanks of all my constituents for the admirable work that she has done to bring relief and justice for all the Farepak savers. It has been an exemplary instance of how Parliament can work effectively for constituents. We are very grateful to my hon. Friend. Does she agree that one good thing that might come out of this terrible situation is that it can encourage many people to see that a good and secure way of saving is with credit unions. My hon. Friend has done sterling work with constituents, and so have I. Is there a way in which we can build on this to encourage more people to save with credit unions?

Anne Snelgrove: I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. If there is a silver lining to the Farepak debacle, it is the fact that credit unions have increased massively. As a result of the work that I, my hon. Friend and other Members have done, more people are signed up with credit unions than ever before, which is excellent.
	Other initiatives in my constituency include a Christmas party for the children of families affected by the Farepak collapse, including those in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is organised by our local paper, the  Swindon Advertiserand we reckon that it is going to be a cracker! Farepak agents in Swindon are concerned that they have not yet received any vouchers from the Farepak response fund. None has reached Swindon and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that all is going to plan and that every effort is being made.
	As well as some 600 children in Swindon being affected, 90 staff lost their jobs at the Farepak headquarters and they must not be forgotten either. Even if no one had lost a penny in all of this, the loss of 90 jobs is a devastating blow at Christmas. I have been talking to some of the staff. In the past, they went to any length to make sure that Christmas was delivered to their customersand the collapse of the company was shattering for each of them. To provide an example, on 19 October 2004, 400,000 gift vouchers were sorted and dispatched by people in my constituency. That gives an idea of the scale of the operations. The company's founder, Bob Johnson, was a huge public figure in Swindonmuch loved and respected. He and his staff raised thousands of pounds for charity. If he were alive today, he would be deeply shocked at what has happened.
	Of course, the Government will meet Farepak employees' entitlement to statutory redundancy pay, arrears of pay, holiday pay and money in lieu of notice. Thankfully, Swindon has the highest employment rate in the south-west, so I hope that when the dust settles as many Farepak employees as possible will be back in work.
	Why, with such a fantastic work force, should a successful business, such as Farepak, collapse in the first place? Each day, the outrage grows, as we know more and more about what went wrong at Farepak. We know that, as far back as February 2006, when Choice Gift Vouchers Ltda firm that Farepak relied on for creditwent into administration, Farepak's parent company, EHR, was in big trouble. I have with me the Kleeneze plc annual report for 2005the directors' report from the group that included Farepak.

Anne Snelgrove: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his work. Suzi Hall has indeed done excellent work with unfarepak.co.uk. I very much hope that some of my constituents can also get reparation from the directors.
	The Kleeneze plc annual report provides the evidence that, even after the writing was on the wall for Farepak, directors were lining their pockets with 1 million of dividends. Page 25 shows that the EHR board voted to pay out a directors' dividend in 2005. In February 2006, they were up against their overdraft and clearly could not afford to pay back Farepak customers and the bank. But in March 2006, they went ahead with the planned dividend payout of 1 millionmoney that the company simply could not afford.
	The main villains in this pantomime benefited substantially. The Gilodi-Johnson family were the main beneficiaries, although Sir Clive Thompson, chairman of Kleeneze plc enjoyed a 20,000 bonus. Now I learn from Sky News that another beneficiary, William Rollason, who was chief executive of the parent company, is being sued in Australia for negligence and breach of director's duty. Interestingly, he is an old colleague of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), from his days in public relations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us where Mr. Rollason is hiding out if he is still on his Christmas card list. The directors were paying themselves with Farepak savers' money, while the fate of the company had already been sealedand that was just the beginning.
	I support the unfairpak.co.uk campaigners, such as Suzi, who picketed the annual Christmas drinks party of HBOS in the bitter cold on Monday. HBOS has said that some customers might take their business away from the group, and I can understand that decision. Many hon. Members have signed the early-day motion that calls for such action. The evidence keeps mounting, and I hope that the evidence will help us to achieve justice.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for telling the House that the Department of Trade and Industry has launched an investigation to discover what lessons can be learned from Farepak's collapse and that he will look at whether we can change the law to give consumers additional protection. This complex issue will require some time to get right, so I am not calling on him to deal with it immediately, but I should like to ask him what progress he has made and when he expects to give us some answers for the future.
	A good deal more comment has come from the House to say that something ought to be done rather than what should be done. The options that have come forward are regulation by the FSA, insurance bonding, controls on internal parent company loans and lending, and encouraging people to stop using such clubs. If there is one single thing that could be shouted from the rooftops as a result of this episode it is that section 75 protection under the consumer credit legislation for people who pay with cards has worked. The banks pick up the bill, which is all the more appropriate if we believe that banks do not always lend wisely to start with. That is why I start with the section 75 protection and will now move on to what improvements can be made to protect customers.
	There is a wide variety of organisations that accept deposits for goods in advance. We are talking about everything from magazine subscriptions to holidays, soft furnishings, football match season tickets, double glazing and kitchen units. Consumers are exposed to a potential Farepak-style loss every time they pay for goods or services and do not receive them immediately. Much of the focus of financial regulation relates to the way in which information is presented, the content of that information and the process by which products are sold.
	That may be one aspect of what the FSA could regulate, but as well as mis-selling, the issue at Farepak was solvency. It is generally perceived that there is a public interest benefit in not letting banks become insolvent, because of the effect that that would have on the economy at large. Other sectors of the economy receive no such protection. I suggest that rules like those that cover the information contained on credit card statementsthe health warnings boxcould be applied to hamper or voucher contracts. The contracts could say something like, Your money is not guaranteed.
	Attention should be given to finding a definition so that firms such as Farepak and the Park Group can be identified and treated differently from other companies. Perhaps laws could be passed that affect only Hamper Industry Trade Association members. At present, HITA is simply a trade body, but it could be upgraded. It is very much in the interests of remaining operators to have the sector regulated in some way to restore faith in the product. Thus, I believe that there is an open door here for scrutiny and review.
	On insurance bonding, we know that the industry had a bond of 100,000, but that was simply a commitment of good intent by each member and was never intended as compensation. There are models for using insurance to limit financial riskthe airlines' ATOL, or air travel organiser's licence, scheme being the most obvious. The voucher business is a very low margin business and expensive insurance requirements could make it uneconomic. However, we should investigate a more comprehensive bond scheme for Hamper Industry Trade Association members.
	Turning to controls on internal parent companies, and loans and lending, it seems pretty clear that HBOS's actions determined the timing of the failure, as well as perhaps its likelihood. There has been much talk of ring-fencing and I believe that it should be considered with respect to hamper companies.
	Lastly, there is the option of encouraging people to stop using these clubs. I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for lending his expertise to the consideration of this issue and asking the chair of the financial inclusion taskforce to look at why people opt to use hamper schemes and similar vehicles. I am sure that the report will find that there is more to attract savers to a voucher scheme than the financial aspects. The network for such schemes is often based around family and friends. The schemes offer social inclusion, as well as financial inclusion. This sector is not motivated by interest earned on deposits, or tax breaks. With voucher schemes, people can see what they are saving for, and they cannot spend what they have saved until the vouchers are delivered in October, before Christmas.
	I talked to Claire Whyley from the National Consumer Council today and I am pleased to announce that it has funding from the Joseph Rowntree Trust for a group of organisations, led by the personal finance research centre, to develop a model of not-for-profit doorstep lending. If successful, that model could also be used to provide a safe and secure model of cash-collected saving for people on low incomes. I congratulate the partners and ask the Minister to look closely at the model that they produce. The National Consumer Council also agrees that we should not rush, because we need to get the legislation right for that small group of savers on low incomes.
	In closing, the fact that the Houseand particularly Mr. Speakerhas taken so much interest in this matter demonstrates that the people who saved with Farepak have not been forgotten. Far from ittheir plight has touched the whole House. Along with our friends in the media, who helped us to run such a good campaign, we hope that we have been able to do as much as possible so that those people can have a very happy Christmas.

Ian McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) and her colleagues who are with her this evening on obtaining a further debate on this issue. Since the devastating collapse of Farepak, my hon. Friend has resisted grandstanding on this matter. She has worked with me to highlight the plight of the victims and, more importantly in the short term, has taken practical measures to ensure that they are helped.
	I know that Mr. Speaker himself is keenly interested in what is happening. He has apologised to me personally for not being able to be present for the debate. I thank him for that, and I know that you are also interested in the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, the situation has touched most hon. Members because of the range of individuals and communities throughout the country who have been affected by the collapse.
	I said in the Westminster Hall debate on 7 November that this was one of the areas in which Members of Parliament could really make a difference. Although Ministers are not technically responsible for every single company that collapsesnor can they bethere are occasions when one's instinct should take one to the right place, and when rather than playing safe and washing one's hands of a situation, one should take responsibility to try to help out. That is why I have tried to keep the House up to date on developments through my answers to written and oral questions, the written statement of 30 November and the letter that I sent to all hon. Members on 7 December. I welcome this opportunity to report on what has happened so far and to take stock.
	When I heard of the collapse, I immediately contacted the administrators to assess the extent of the problem caused by the company going into administration. It was apparent that more than 100,000 people had lost out and lost out seriously. The estimate of the administrators was that only a few pennies in the pound were likely to be recovered and that, with the best will in the world, it would still take months to get to the point of a payment. The outlook for the families and the prospects for their Christmases were bleak indeed.
	There was an urgent need to find a means by which some form of practical assistance could be delivered in time for Christmas. I discussed that with the British Retail Consortium, which agreed to attempt to put together a good-will gesture supported by donations from its member businesses. However, it subsequently came to the view that there were too many serious practical difficulties in the way of it organising a workable and timely form of assistance, so it asked me to think again.
	Those difficulties were very real. The company had no record of its customers, only its agents. It had no information on what individual customers had ordered. There were no vouchers ready for distribution. The cessation of trading created a tangle of legal claims that had to be sorted out. The company had ordered only some of the food items needed to make up the hampers. There were also legal issues relating to the ownership of the agent list and the hampers. Despite those difficulties, the BRC still expressed a willingness to help, which set in train the decision to examine how we could get over those hurdles and find a way forward.
	I was able to announce to Parliament on 7 November that my private office and I had held talks with the Family Fund, a registered charity with 30 years' experience of helping disadvantaged families. From those discussions, a dedicated voucher fund, the Farepak Response Fund, was born. I am grateful for the assistance of the Charity Commission and Companies House for enabling all the legal paperwork needed to establish the charity to be completed in a matter of days, rather than weeks or months. The fund has since received donations amounting to more than 6.8 million. Some 340,000 came from individual donations, a substantial number of which were eligible for gift aid. The Family Fund, with the aid of Park Group, has now sent out those donations in the form of vouchers. Park Group itself donated more than 1 million to the fund, and, at its own expense and using its expertise, ensured that vouchers were printed and distributed to agents throughout the United Kingdom.
	I noted what my hon. Friend said about the situation Swindon and I give her a commitment that I will check that as a matter of urgency. However, the first packets were sent out on 5 December and I understand that all the packages have now gone out for delivery, a week in advance of the target date of 18 December.
	We have appointed the accountants Grant Thornton. It has kindly agreed to audit the accounts for a nominal fee of only 1, which is purely for legal reasons. Once the audit is completed, in addition to the normal filing with the Charity Commission, I will place a copy of the accounts in the Library of the House for hon. Members' consideration.
	An even more complicated problem was what to do with the hampers. A solution was found only last week. Let me make it clear to the House that the hampers are not the wicker baskets that we perhaps imagine. Farepak customers could make a variety of choices about items for the table on Christmas day. In practice, the hampers came as boxed packages, not baskets, and a number of packages would make up the particular hamper that had been ordered. They held the sort of things that we would all usually have on our table on Christmas day and Boxing day. Some 8,000 agents had sent in orders. Farepak had ordered packages to be made up for some of the orders, but not all. It had expected to complete the orders closer to Christmas, but went insolvent first.
	Some 19,000 packages had been made up and were deliverable, and they were held in a warehouse in Wakefield in west Yorkshire. In addition, there was a quantity of frozen food in another warehouse that is under different ownership. The Family Fund has not been able to find a practical way of delivering that frozen food, so the administrators are seeking to sell it off for the benefit of the creditors. As for the non-frozen packages, the fund has been offered free delivery by Home Delivery Network Ltd, which is one of the few companies with a distribution network spanning the country, and it can deliver directly to all agents in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	This is the busiest time of year for logistics companiesthey are delivering a parcel every 17 secondsso I am grateful that the company was able to offer its assistance. It is not only delivering the hampers, but sending a letter to every agent, explaining how the good-will gesture was distributed. As with Pawsons, a small family company that warehoused the hampers, Home Delivery Network Ltd provided all its labour and logistics free of charge. That service would otherwise have cost the companies concerned about 500,000money that would have had to come from the fund. The lorries started rolling yesterday, and the first agents and customers got their hampers yesterday and today, ahead of schedule. Over the next few days, all 19,000 hampers will be distributed in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	I stress that it has not been possible to send to each agent exactly what was ordered, or even a proportion of what was ordered, as there are simply not enough packages, so the agents will simply select from what is available. The distribution of the packages will provide more value for the families than any available alternative would have done. I re-emphasise that the hampers are in addition to the vouchers already sent out. It is important to remember that the money used to purchase the hampers goes back into the administrators' pot, and will be distributed back to the creditorsthe Farepak families.
	If we had not acted, the families would have been hit with a double whammy: they would not have received the goods for which they had paid, and the administrators would have gone on paying for storagea cost that would have come out of the funds that are eventually to go to the families. The administrators might even have had to pay for the eventual disposal and destruction of the goods, and again, those costs would have come out of the money that is to go to the families.
	The easy thing would have been to leave the hampers where they were; it was more difficult to find a way of making better use of them, but in taking that difficult decision, we did what was right for the families. I am pleased that we were able to find a way to take that action. There are many other channels through which direct and indirect assistance is reaching the families. The administrators have already refunded payments received after 13 October, and they are applying to the court for a ruling that all payments received between 11 October, when the company ceased trading, and 13 October, should be returned in full, too. That would enable the return of perhaps a further 500,000, directly to the Farepak agents. We must wait for the court's decision on that.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, some agents have obtained credit card refunds under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, or debit card refunds under the terms of the issuing bank's policy on charge-backs. I should mention that the banks think that not all agents who are in a position to seek a refund have done so. They tell me that although more than 24,000 payments were made using such cards, so far only 14,000 repayments have been requested, and those repayments total 2.5 million so far. I urge all agents who paid by credit card to contact their banks and seek a refund as soon as possible.
	Some employers have aided affected employees, and are paying back employees' losses in full. Donations from individuals will be eligible for gift aid, and that will add a further 50,000 or so to the fund. There are local initiatives in many parts of the country, and help in kind has been offered from many sources, particularly in providing logistical and distribution services. Without those services, we would not have been able to do what has been done, and we would have had to pay for similar services using the money collected for families. Uniquely, every pound donated to the fund will be delivered to the Farepak victims. Contrary to what some sceptics alleged four weeks ago, the fund has not paid out huge sums in administration and other costs.
	Turning to the investigation, the first issue is to establish what happened. Given the extent of public concern, we decided that an investigation should begin straight away, and the companies investigation branch of my Department is investigating the circumstances surrounding Farepak's collapse. Depending on the investigation's findings, a report may be passed to appropriate regulators or prosecuting authorities.

Ian McCartney: I will write to my hon. Friend, and my reply will be consistent with the answers that I have given him in recent discussion in the House and with other written replies.
	The administrators will report separately to the Secretary of State any findings of misconduct, and those findings will be considered alongside the report by the companies investigation branch. If he concludes that anyone is not a fit person to be a director, he may seek their disqualification for up to 15 years. Members should be aware that if a company is liquidated, and there is evidence of wrongful or fraudulent trading, the liquidator can ask the court to declare that those responsible should make a personal contribution towards the company's assets. That is important, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) said about the letters that have been sent by solicitors. Hon. Members should not advise people who can little afford legal advicein fact, they can access it only if it is freeto spend money on such advice until the administrator and the companies investigation branch have completed their inquiries.
	As I have said before, I am not going to speculate on the reasons that Farepak failed, or on the culpability of its directors or any organisation associated with the collapse. If, as a result of the investigation, charges are brought, I would not want a clever lawyer to get someone off the hook because of any comments that I have made in the House or elsewhere. The Farepak victims deserve justice, and I would not want to be the person who denied them that. We will learn lessons from the collapse, and do what we can to ensure that something similar does not happen again. First, we will look at the regulatory framework. I have asked the Office of Fair Trading to work with the Financial Services Authority and my officials to look at the regulatory framework in which Farepak operated, and to consider options to address any issues that are raised. I expect to receive their preliminary views shortly.
	Secondly, we will look at the wider implications of the Farepak collapse. I will work with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has asked Brian Pomeroy, chairman of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce, to look at why people were using Farepak and other savings clubs, and whether their savings needs might not be better met by mainstream financial products and, indeed, the methods suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills). I will contribute to the review, and the taskforce will report to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary at about the time of the Budget. The investigators will produce a report on their inquiry. I can assure hon. Members that it will not take years, but it will take some time to ensure that there is a proper investigation, rather than a knee-jerk reaction.
	Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon for thanking me. The people we should be thanking are not those whom I have mentioned but the agents, who lost everything. They were victims, as they lost their business, hampers and perhaps even the friendship of others. In the past five weeks, they have worked without any pay or hope of getting any money back to deliver vouchers and, now, hampers. They are the real Father Christmases, not me. I thank hon. Members for saying so, but it is a bit of an embarrassment. All that we have done is to try to help a little in very difficult circumstances, and I want to thank everybody who helped to make a contribution. We have moved from phase 1, which is to help people. The second phase is to investigate
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eight o'clock.